appendix d- geotechnical.pdf

20153715.001A/SAL15R12470 Page i of v January 15, 2015 © 2015 Kleinfelder

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT DISTRICT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY 1 RYAN RANCH ROAD MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA KLF PROJECT #20153715.001A

JANUARY 15, 2015

Copyright 2015 Kleinfelder

All Rights Reserved

ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED.

20153715.001A/SAL15R12470 Page ii of v January 15, 2015 © 2015 Kleinfelder

40 Clark Street, Unit J, Salinas, CA 93907 p | 831.755.7900 f | 831.755.7909

January 15, 2015 Project No. 20153715.001A AECOM 2101 Webster Street, Suite 1900 Oakland, California 94612 Attention: Mr. Rob McKie SUBJECT: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the Proposed Monterey-

Salinas Transit District Operations and Maintenance Facility Expansion in Monterey, California

Dear Mr. McKie: We are pleased to submit our geotechnical investigation report for the proposed Monterey Salinas Transit District Operations and Maintenance Facility Expansion to be located at 1 Ryan Ranch Road in Monterey, California. The accompanying report provides the results of our field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. Geotechnical design recommendations are presented for site preparation, grading, engineered fill, surface drainage, utility trench backfill, foundations, retaining walls and seismic design parameters. In addition, we have provided the results of the percolation testing which was performed at the site. The primary geotechnical considerations at this site are the presence of moderately expansive near surface soils on portions of the site, collapse potential of saturated on-site soils used as engineered fill, erosion of cut and fill slopes, low subgrade support strength of on-site soils in the bus parking areas, and lower permeability of soils containing clayey fines and/or decomposed sandstone at depth. The moderately expansive soils will require a layer of “non-expansive” fill, or a thickened rock section under the proposed building additions and exterior concrete slabs-on-grade. The collapse potential of saturated on-site soils used as engineered fill will limit the use of the onsite soils for use as fill when subjected to a combination of high loads and potential saturation. Buried stormwater management systems will need to be located in areas that will not be subjected to high ground pressures that exist in areas such as foundation zones and to a lesser extent the bus parking areas. Such improvements will need to be located in light weight vehicle parking areas and landscape areas. Cut and fill slopes will need to protected from erosion. Additionally, animal burrows in the existing slopes could result in piping failures downslope of the buried stormwater management system. This will need to be mitigated by grading or site selection for the system. Low subgrade support strength of on-site soils in the bus parking areas will result in a slight increase in the asphalt concrete and baserock sections recommended for flexible pavements, and a slight increase in the baserock section for Portland cement concrete pavements. Finally, the lower permeability of deeper on-site soils containing clayey fines and/or

20153715.001A/SAL15R12470 Page iii of v January 15, 2015 © 2015 Kleinfelder

KLEINFELDER 40 Clark Street, Unit J, Salinas, CA 93907 p | 831.755.7900 f | 831.755.7909

decomposed sandstone will limit the total embedment depth of the buried stormwater management system. These items are discussed in the report. Based on the results of our investigation and from a geotechnical standpoint, we judge that the proposed improvements may be developed as planned provided the recommendations in the attached report including appendices are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. As noted in our report, Kleinfelder should be retained to review pre-final project plans and specifications prior to the start of construction, and to observe and test during earthwork and foundation construction. This will allow us to compare conditions exposed during construction with those encountered during our investigation and to present supplemental recommendations if warranted by different site conditions. We appreciate the opportunity of providing our services to you on this project. If any questions should arise regarding the interpretation of the contents of this report, please contact us at 831.755. 7900. Sincerely, KLEINFELDER, INC. Robert Hasseler, CE 58488 Brian O’Neill, PE, GE 2516 Project Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer Jeff Richmond, CEG 2425 Project Professional

20153715.001A/SAL15R12470 Page iv of v January 15, 2015 © 2015 Kleinfelder

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT DISTRICT

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY 1 RYAN RANCH ROAD

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................... 2

2. SITE INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................................... 3 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 3 2.2 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ........................................................................................ 3 2.3 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION .............................................................................. 5 2.4 PERCOLATION TESTING ......................................................................................... 5 2.5 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................. 6 2.6 CORROSION POTENTIAL TESTING ........................................................................ 6 2.7 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................... 7

3. GEOLOGY AND SEISMIC DESIGN .................................................................................. 8 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ............................................................................................. 8 3.2 SITE GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 9 3.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY .................................................................................... 9 3.4 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................................. 11 3.5 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND DYNAMIC COMPACTION ................................ 12

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 13 4.1 EARTHWORK ......................................................................................................... 13

4.1.1 Site Clearing and Stripping ......................................................................... 13 4.1.2 Grading and Subgrade Preparation ............................................................ 14 4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ........................................................................... 15 4.1.4 Material for Engineered Fill ......................................................................... 15 4.1.5 Fill Placement and Compaction .................................................................. 16 4.1.6 Excavations and Utility Trench Backfill ........................................................ 17 4.1.7 Surface Drainage ........................................................................................ 18 4.1.8 Seepage Control ......................................................................................... 19

4.1.8.1 Surface Infiltration Features ........................................................19 4.1.8.2 Buried Storm Water Management Systems ................................20

4.1.9 Wet Weather Construction .......................................................................... 20 4.1.10 Construction Observation ........................................................................... 21

4.2 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS AND SETTLEMENT ..................................................... 21 4.2.1 Shallow Footing Foundations ...................................................................... 21 4.2.2 Cast-In Drilled-Hole Pile Foundations (Drilled Piers) ................................... 23

4.3 RETAINING STRUCTURES .................................................................................... 26 4.4 VEHICLE PAVEMENTS .......................................................................................... 28

4.4.1 Flexible Asphalt Pavements ........................................................................ 28 4.4.2 Rigid Concrete Pavements ......................................................................... 30

4.5 PERCOLATION CHARACTERISTICS OF IN-SITU SOILS ...................................... 31

5. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................. 33

6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 37

20153715.001A/SAL15R12470 Page v of v January 15, 2015 © 2015 Kleinfelder




Table of Contents (Continued)

PLATES Plate 1 Site Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Plan Plate 3 Proposed Improvements APPENDICES Appendix A Plate A-1 Graphics Key Plate A-2 Soil Description Key Plate A-3 to A-11 Boring Logs (B-1 to B-9) Appendix B Percolation Testing Results Appendix C Laboratory Testing Results Plate C-1 Laboratory Test Results Summary Plate C-2 Sieve Analysis Test Results Plate C-3 Atterberg Limits Test Results Plate C-4 Direct Shear Test Results Plate C-5 One Dimensional Swell Test Results Plates C-6 and C-7 R-Value Test Results Appendix D Corrosion Testing Laboratory Results Appendix E Summary of Compaction Recommendations Appendix F GBA Information Sheet

20153715.001A/SAL15R12470 Page 1 of 37 January 15, 2015 © 2015 Kleinfelder




1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed

Monterey Salinas Transit District Operations and Maintenance Facility Expansion to be

located at 1 Ryan Ranch Road in Monterey, California. The approximate location of the

project is shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The locations of our borings and

percolation tests are shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. Proposed improvements are

shown on Plate 3. This geotechnical investigation was performed for AECOM and

Monterey Salinas Transit District.

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the

subsurface soil conditions encountered at the locations of our exploration, and the

provisions and requirements outlined in the Limitations section of this report. The

findings, conclusions and recommendations presented herein should not be

extrapolated to other areas or be used for other projects without our review.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

We understand that the project consists of an overhaul of the existing Monterey Salinas

Transit District Operations and Maintenance Facility. The improvements will include new

additions and renovations to the existing site buildings, bus wash renovation, and

enlargement of the existing fuel canopy, grading, pavements, retaining walls, on-site

storm water management and new buried utilities.

The new additions are anticipated to be tall one-story lightweight structures with

concrete slab-on-grade floors and conventional spread footing foundations. Specific

details regarding structure loading are not known at this time. It is anticipated that the

retaining walls will be supported on deepened conventional footing foundations or cast

in drilled hole piles (i.e. drilled piers). Canopy foundations would be either conventional

spread footings or pier foundations.


1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to evaluate subsurface soil

conditions at the site of the proposed improvements; and to provide geotechnical

recommendations pertaining to earthwork and the foundation aspects of the project.

The scope of services performed for this geotechnical investigation consisted of a site

reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis of field

and laboratory data, and preparation of this report. Percolation testing was also

performed as part of this investigation. The data obtained and analyses performed were

for the purpose of providing design and construction recommendations for site

preparation and grading, utility trench excavation and backfilling, building and canopy

foundations, retaining walls, and site drainage.

Environmental services such as evaluation and chemical analysis of the soil and

groundwater for hazardous materials were not included in our scope of services.


2. SITE INVESTIGATION

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The project site is located at 1 Ryan Ranch Road in Monterey, California. The location

of the site is shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Plate 1, in the Appendix. The site is

bounded to the west by Canyon Del Rey Road, to the south by Ryan Ranch Road, to

the north by Del Rey Gardens Drive and a parking lot (not part of the project site) to the

northeast, and to the east by undeveloped land. Site access is to the southeast towards

Ryan Ranch Road.

The irregularly shaped project site contains several buildings, a bus wash and fuel area,

conventional asphalt concrete parking lots and bus parking, sidewalks and landscaping

areas. The Site Plan, Plate 2 in the Appendix, shows the existing layout of the site and

the location of our exploratory borings and percolation test holes. The upper, developed

portion of the site is relatively level with only mild slopes. Between the upper developed

portion of the site and the bounding roads to the north, west and south, the ground

slopes moderately downwards. These areas are vegetated with trees, brush and grass.

To the northeast the ground slopes moderately upwards towards the bounding parking

lot to the northeast, and has similar vegetation. The eastern project site parking lot is

separated from the main developed part of the site by landscaping. The eastern parking

lot is slightly lower than the rest of the site. The perimeter of the eastern parking lot

consists of vegetated slopes which slope upwards to the north and west and

downwards to the south. Site drainage is generally to the southeast.

2.2 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

A Certified Engineering Geologist from our firm performed a site reconnaissance on

December 3, 2014 to observe the current site conditions. The focus of the

reconnaissance was to identify potential geologic hazards that could impact the

proposed improvements. The following section describes the potential geologic hazards

identified during the reconnaissance.


Multiple landslides, landslide scars and erosion rills were identified on the cut slopes

adjacent to Canyon Del Rey Boulevard, indicating the slopes are currently in an over-

steepened configuration for the poorly to non-indurated deposits exposed. While no

evidence of incipient failure was observed above the hinge point of the slope, future up-

slope migration of the landslides should be anticipated as the slope attempts to reach its

angle of repose. The slopes are beyond the site property boundary, and the most

proximal slope is approximately 15 feet in height and currently 100 feet from the

proposed improvements. As such, future failure migration will not likely impact the site

or proposed improvements.

A broad colluvial swale exists along the southwest property line. A shallow landslide

previously occurred where the drainage intersects the Canyon Del Rey Boulevard cut

slope and is approximately 85 feet from the proposed improvements. The landslide was

previously investigated by Tharp (1993) and Weber-Hayes (1993), but remains largely

unmitigated. The drainage is configured at approximately 6.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical)

and has been locally disturbed by subsurface utility installation. While the existing

landslide and colluvial drainage do not necessarily represent a slope stability hazard,

thickened weak and/or porous soil should be anticipated within limits of the drainage.

Existing cut slopes throughout the site configured at 1H:1V exhibit accelerated erosion

and shallow failures, locally. Slopes which expose silty sand deposits appear most

susceptible. The existing slopes and any proposed slopes constructed in a similarly

over-steepened configuration will continue to fail, and require future maintenance and/or

stabilization.

Existing and proposed improvements constructed on or in close proximity to slopes are

susceptible to creep disturbance, particularly during periods of saturation. Disturbance

(settlement, lateral movement) of curb and gutter was noted on the site, particularly

along the south perimeter.

Abundant large animal burrows where observed throughout the slope located west of

the site entrance and directly down slope of percolation test P-2. During periods of

saturation, the burrows could potentially contribute to piping of perched groundwater

and contribute to slope instability in the area.


Provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and

construction of the proposed improvements at the site, the conditions described above

should not adversely affect the project.

2.3 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

Our field investigation consisted of a site reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration

program. On November 20 and 21, 2014, nine exploratory borings were drilled to

depths of between 5 feet and 30 feet below existing ground surface near the proposed

locations of the new facilities using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch

diameter hollow stem augers. The approximate locations of our borings are shown on

the Site Plan, Plate 2.

The soils encountered in the borings were visually classified in the field, and our

engineering staff recorded a log of each boring. Soil samples were obtained from the

borings by driving either a 2½ inch inside diameter California tube sampler, or a 13/8

inch inside diameter Standard Penetration (SPT) split-spoon sampler up to a depth of

18 inches into the underlying soil with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The

number of blows required to drive the sampler was recorded for each 6-inch penetration

interval. The borings were backfilled with drilling spoils and were capped with concrete

in pavement areas.

Our field engineering staff made visual classification of the soils encountered in our

exploratory borings in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System

(ASTM D2487 and D2488). Keys for the classification of the soil are presented in

Appendix A on the Graphics Key, Plate A-1 and the Soil Description Key, Plate A-2. The

logs of the borings are presented on Plates A-3 to A-11 in Appendix A.

2.4 PERCOLATION TESTING

On November 21, 2014 three percolation tests were completed to evaluate the average

percolation rates of the near-surface soils. The test holes were drilled on November 20

using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers to a

depth of approximately 15 feet below the existing ground surface. A section of 4-inch

diameter slotted PVC pipe was installed in the bottom 5 feet of each test hole and solid

PVC pipe was installed in the upper 10 feet of each hole. The bottom 6 feet of the hole

was backfilled with gravel and a 12 inch thick bentonite seal was installed above the


gravel. The holes were then pre-saturated by filling the holes with water. The

percolation testing was performed on November 21, 2014 using a 10-minute

measurement interval. The locations of the percolation tests are shown as P-1 to P-3 on

the Site Plan, Plate 2. The results of the percolation testing are included in Appendix B.

2.5 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING

Representative soil samples were obtained from the exploratory borings at selected

depths. The samples were returned to our laboratory for further evaluation and testing.

Laboratory testing of selected soil samples from the borings was conducted to evaluate

the natural moisture content and density, grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, direct

shear strength, one dimensional swell/collapse potential, and R-value. Most of the

laboratory test results are presented on the individual boring logs. A summary of our

laboratory tests results is presented on Plate C-1. The results of the grain size

distribution test are shown on Plate C-2. The results of the Atterberg limits tests are

shown on Plate C-3. The results of the direct shear strength test are shown on Plate C-

4. The results of the one dimensional swell test are shown on Plate C-5, and the results

of the R-Value tests are shown on Plates C-6 and C-7.

2.6 CORROSION POTENTIAL TESTING

A representative near surface soil sample was sent to CERCO Analytical laboratory to

evaluate the potential corrosivity of onsite soils. Laboratory chloride concentration,

sulfate concentration, pH, oxidation reduction potential, and electrical resistivity tests

were performed for the selected soil sample. The results of the tests and a summary

letter from CERCO Analytical are attached in Appendix D. If fill materials will be

imported to the project site, similar corrosion potential laboratory testing should be

completed on the imported material.

Our scope of services does not include corrosion engineering and therefore a detailed

analysis of the corrosion test results is not included in this report. A qualified corrosion

engineer should be retained to review the test results and design protective systems

that may be required. Kleinfelder is able to provide those services if requested.


2.7 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Ground cover in the northern parking areas and bus parking areas (B-1 through B-3 and

B-8 and B-9) consisted of about 3½ to 6 inches thickness of asphalt concrete overlying

approximately 3 to 6 inches of aggregate base material. Pavement thickness in the

southern parking lot (B-6) was approximately 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 4 inches

of aggregate base material over silty sand with gravel fill to a depth of about 9 feet

below existing grade. Pavement thickness in the eastern parking lot (B-7) was

approximately 1½ inches of asphalt concrete over 2 inches of aggregate base material.

Boring B-4 was drilled on an asphalt covered fill pad on the west side of the site and

ground cover consisted of approximately 2 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of

aggregate base material over silty sand fill to a depth of about 3½ feet below existing

grade. Boring B-5 was drilled in landscaping and consisted of about 2 inches of

aggregate base material.

Subsurface soils consisted primarily of silty sands and clayey sands with some poorly

graded sands. These soils extended to a depth of at least 30 feet in Borings B-2, B-3

and B-7. In Borings B-1, B-4, B-5 and B-6 the near surface soils overlaid decomposed

to highly weathered weak sandstone, which was encountered at a depth of

approximately 8, 3½, 1½ and 9 feet below existing grade, respectively. The coarse

grained soils underlying the site were typically medium dense to very dense except for

the silty sand fill layer to a depth of about 3½ feet at Boring B-4, which was loose.

Groundwater was not encountered in our borings or percolation test holes. However, it

must be noted that seasonal fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to

variations in rainfall, temperature, groundwater withdrawal, and possibly other factors

that were not evident at the time of our investigation. Due to the slow percolation rates

in the clayey sand layers below the silty sand layers in our percolation test holes, there

is a potential for seasonally perched groundwater at various depths.

The above is a general description of the subsurface conditions encountered in our

exploratory borings at the project site. Additional information is provided on the Logs of

Borings in Appendix A. Soil and groundwater conditions can deviate from those

conditions encountered at the boring locations. Should this be revealed during

construction, Kleinfelder should be notified immediately for possible revisions to the

recommendation that follow.


3. GEOLOGY AND SEISMIC DESIGN

3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The site is located approximately 2.5 miles inland (southeast) of Monterey Bay, within

the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of Central California. This Province is

comprised of a discontinuous series of northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges,

ridges, and intervening valleys characterized by complex folding and faulting and the

dominant structural regime in the region. Geologic structure within the Coast Ranges

Province is generally controlled by the San Andreas fault system, which is a major

tectonic transform plate boundary. This right-lateral strike-slip fault system extends from

the Gulf of California in Mexico, to Cape Mendocino in northern California and forms a

portion of the boundary between two tectonic plates. In this portion of the Coast Ranges

Province, the Pacific plate (located west of the transform boundary) moves north

relative to the North American plate (located east of the transform boundary).

Deformation along this plate boundary occurs across a wide zone that is referred to as

the San Andreas fault system.

The site is located within the Salinian Block, which is one of the distinct continental

terranes of the central Coast Ranges. In the region, the Salinian Block is bounded by

the San Andreas fault on the east and the Sur-Nacimiento fault zone on the west (Page,

1966). This basement rock of this block is composed of Cretaceous age (about 140 to

65 million years old) granitic and high-grade metamorphic rocks. Major orogenic

features within the Salinian Block in the vicinity of the site include the Gabilan Range to

the east/northeast, the Sierra de Salinas to the southeast, and the Santa Lucia Range

to the southwest.

Overlying the granitic basement rocks of the Salinian block are Cretaceous and Tertiary

(about 65 to 1.8 million years old), marine and continental sedimentary rocks and

occasional Tertiary volcanic rocks. These Cretaceous and Tertiary age rocks are

typically folded and faulted into a series of generally northwest-southeast trending

blocks, largely as a result of stresses related to movement along the San Andreas fault

system. The inland valleys, including Salinas Valley, are filled with unconsolidated to

semi-consolidated alluvium (stream channel and over-bank deposits) of Quaternary age

(1.8 million years old to current). In the vicinity of the project site, the bedrock is overlain

by Quaternary age terrace deposits, eolian sands, and alluvium.


3.2 SITE GEOLOGY

The geology of the site has been mapped by Dibblee and Minch (2007), Dupre (1990)

and Clark et al. (1997), among others. Dibblee and Minch (2007) map the site as

underlain by Quaternary age, dissected older alluvium. The reference indicates the

Canyon Del Rey Boulevard road cut southwest of the site exposes diatomite bedrock of

the Miocene age (23 to 5.3 million years old) Monterey Formation. Dupre (1990) and

Clark, Dupre and Rosenberg (1997) show the site to be underlain by Quaternary age

(Pleistocene) coastal terrace deposits, described as semi-consolidated, well sorted

marine sand, locally indurated and containing thin discontinuous gravel layers.

Comparable to Dibblee and Minch (2007), Dupre (1990) indicates the road cut exposes

undivided, pre-Quaternary bedrock. Clark et al. (1997) have also mapped the exposure

as Monterey formation diatomite bedrock, described as pale orange to white, punky and

locally silty. The reference indicates the terrace deposits and diatomite are in faulted

contact along the southwestern trace of the Chupines fault.

All three (3) references show the drainage within which Canyon Del Rey Boulevard and

the lower section of Ryan Ranch Road are located as being underlain by Holocene age

(11,000 years old to present). Dupre (1990) characterizes this deposit as highly

susceptible to liquefaction, while the terrace deposits and bedrock underlying the site

are characterized as having very low liquefaction susceptibility.

3.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY

According to the California Geological Survey (CGS, 2010), the site is not located within

an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest zoned active fault is the creeping

section of the San Andreas fault, located approximately 24.3 miles northeast of the site,

which is capable of producing a maximum earthquake magnitude event of M8.05.

Moderate to major earthquakes generated on the San Andreas fault can be expected to

cause strong ground shaking at the site.


The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quaternary Fault and Fold Database

(available at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/map/) identifies several other

faults within the site vicinity. Table 3.1 below identifies the significant faults in the area

and their corresponding parameters. In addition, the database indicates the southwest

trace of the Chupines fault zone (Del Rey Oaks section) transects the site along its

southwest property line. The USGS characterizes this segment of the Chupines fault as

a “Late Quaternary active (rupture/deformation in the last 15,000 years) dextral-reverse

slip fault with generally up-on-north vertical component of displacement.” This segment

of the Chupines fault zone is not considered a potential source for seismic shaking by

the USGS, and has not been zoned as active by the CGS.

Table 3.1

Significant Faults

Fault Name Fault

Length (miles)

Closest Distance to

Site* (miles)

Magnitude of Characteristic Earthquake**

Slip Rate (millimeters

/year)

Monterey Bay-Tularcitos 51.6 1.6 7.3 0.5

Rinconada 118.7 7.3 7.5 1

San Gregorio Connected 109.4 9.7 7.5 5.5

Zayante-Vergales 36.0 19.8 7.0 0.1

San Andreas-SAS+SAP+SAN+SAO

293.3 24.3 8.05 17-24

Calaveras-CN+CC+CS 76.4 29.2 7.0 6-15

Hosgri 106.3 30.8 7.3 2.5

* Closest distance to the potential rupture.

** Moment magnitude: An estimate of an earthquake’s magnitude based on the seismic moment

(measure of an earthquake’s size utilizing rock rigidity, amount of slip, and area of rupture).

According to Petersen et al. (2008), characterization of the San Andreas, San Gregorio

and Calaveras faults are based on the following fault rupture segments and fault rupture

scenarios:

The San Gregorio Connected fault has been characterized by two segments and

three rupture scenarios, plus a floating earthquake. The two segments are San

Gregorio South (SGS) and San Gregorio North (SGN).

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/map/


The San Andreas Fault has been characterized by four segments and nine

rupture scenarios, plus a floating earthquake. The four segments are Santa Cruz

Mountains (SAS), Peninsula (SAP), North Coast (SAN), and Offshore (SAO).

The Calaveras fault includes three segments and six rupture scenarios, plus a

floating earthquake. The three segments are southern (CS), central (CC), and

northern (CN).

3.4 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA

The table below presents the recommended seismic design parameters for the

proposed development.

Table 3.2 Recommended 2013 CBC (ASCE 7) Seismic Design Parameters

Design Parameter Symbol Recommended

Value

2013 CBC (ASCE 7)

Reference

Site Class -- C Table 20.3-1 (ASCE 7-10)

Mapped Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods

Ss 1.473 g Section 1613.3.1 (1)

Mapped Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period

S1 0.535 g Section 1613.3.1 (2)

Site Coefficient Fa 1.0 Table 1613A.3.3 (1)

Site Coefficient Fv 1.3 Table 1613A.3.3 (2)

MCE* Spectral Response Acceleration for Short Periods

SMS 1.473 g Equation 16A-37

MCE* Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period

SM1 0.696 g Equation 16A-38

Design Spectral Response Acceleration (5% damped) at Short Periods

SDS 0.982 g Equation 16A-39

Design Spectral Response Acceleration (5% damped) at 1-Second Period

SD1 0.464 g Equation 16A-40

*Maximum Considered Earthquake


3.5 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND DYNAMIC COMPACTION

Soil liquefaction is a condition where saturated, predominantly granular soils undergo a

substantial loss of strength and potential deformation due to pore pressure increase

resulting from cyclic stress application induced by earthquakes. In the process, the soil

acquires a mobility sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements if the soil

mass is not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose, clean,

uniformly graded, fine sand deposits.

Near surface coarse grained soils were typically medium dense to very dense overlying

decomposed to highly weathered weak sandstone. No groundwater was encountered to

a depth of 30 feet below existing grade at the time of our subsurface exploration,

although perched groundwater could occur in unpaved or buried stormwater

management systems areas for a brief time after significant rains. Therefore, the

potential for liquefaction of the soils encountered in our borings is judged to be low.

Another type of seismically induced ground failure that can occur as a result of seismic

shaking is dynamic compaction or seismic settlement. Such phenomena typically occur

in unsaturated, loose granular material or uncompacted fill soils. In the event of a major

earthquake in the site vicinity, we estimate that less than ¼ inches of total and

differential settlement could occur as a result of dynamic compaction.


4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the data collected during this investigation and the results of our

engineering analysis, it is our opinion the site may be developed as proposed provided

our recommendations are incorporated in the design and construction of the project.

The opinions, conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on our

field and office studies, the properties of the soils encountered in our borings, and the

results of our laboratory testing program. Geotechnical recommendations for site

preparation, grading, engineered fill, surface drainage, utility trench backfill, foundations,

and retaining walls are presented in the remaining portions of this report, along with the

results of the percolation testing.

4.1 EARTHWORK

The improvements will include new additions and renovations to the existing site

buildings, bus wash renovation, and enlargement of the existing fuel canopy, grading,

pavements, retaining walls, on-site storm water management and new buried utilities.

Earthwork is expected to be limited to that required for site clearing and leveling, cut

and fill slopes, and excavations for footings and drilled piers, the installation of

underground utilities, new fuel areas, and the buried stormwater management system.

Temporary construction slopes (if required) should be formed at no steeper than 1.5:1

(horizontal: vertical). Permanent cut slopes on the northeastern portion of the site

should be cut to no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical). However, we understand

that plans for the proposed improvement to the bus parking area include a 1:1 (H:V) cut

slope above the lot, to a maximum slope height of about 10 feet. As described in report

Section 2.2, cut slopes of 1:1 (H:V) are marginally stable and are expected to require

continuous erosion control and periodic maintenance for surficial sloughing. Fill slopes

should be constructed at 2:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) or flatter.

4.1.1 Site Clearing and Stripping

Prior to the start of construction, obstacles and deleterious material should be removed

from the construction areas. Active utilities to be reused should be carefully located and

protected during site clearing and construction.


All abandoned or underground utilities designated for removal, any concrete slabs on

grade, foundations, and other obstacles and deleterious material encountered should be

removed from the construction areas. Excavations from removal of foundations,

underground utilities or other below ground obstructions should be cleaned of loose soil

and deleterious material, and backfilled with compacted engineered fill compacted to

the requirements given in the “Summary of Compaction Recommendations,” in Exhibit 1

of Appendix E. All clearing and backfill work should be performed under the observation

of a representative from Kleinfelder.

Surface vegetation present at the time of construction should be stripped together with

the organic-laden topsoil. Soils containing more than 3 percent of organic matter by

weight or excessive visible organics as determined by a representative of Kleinfelder

should be considered organic. The actual stripping depth should be determined at the

time of construction. For planning purposes, the average stripping depth may be

assumed to be approximately 3 inches in vegetated areas. Stripped material should be

removed from the site or stockpiled for use in landscaping areas if approved by the

project landscape architect.

4.1.2 Grading and Subgrade Preparation

Upon completion of site clearing and excavations, the exposed soil subgrades should

be properly prepared prior to placement of fill or other construction activities. In areas to

receive engineered fill or concrete slabs on grade, the upper 12 inches of soil should be

scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted as recommended in the “Summary of

Compaction Recommendations,” in Exhibit 1 of Appendix E. For the proposed buildings,

the areas to be processed should include the entire building pads, extending no less

than 5 feet beyond the limits of the buildings and any adjoining sidewalk areas unless

obstructed by improvements to remain. In exterior walkways not adjacent to building

areas, and in pavement areas, subgrade preparation should extend laterally no less

than 2 feet beyond the back of curb, or edge of pavements, and sidewalks unless

obstructed by improvements to remain. After the subgrades are properly prepared, the

areas may be raised to design grades by placement of engineered fill.

All loose or wet subgrade soil encountered during construction should be stabilized prior

to placement of new fill and further construction. The method of stabilization should be

evaluated by a representative of Kleinfelder at the time of construction depending on the


exposed conditions. Moisture conditioning of subgrade and fill soils will consist of

adding water if the soils are too dry, and allowing the soils to dry if the soils are too wet.

4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade

To reduce the effects of seasonal volume changes of the on-site expansive subgrade

soils, we recommend that interior concrete slabs-on-grade be constructed on a layer of

compacted “non-expansive” engineered fill at least 12 inches thick. Exterior concrete

slabs-on-grade should be constructed on a layer of compacted “non-expansive”

engineered fill at least 6 inches thick. Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade that will be

subject to vehicle traffic should be designed as Portland cement concrete pavements as

discussed in Section 4.4.2 “Rigid Concrete Pavements,” herein.

The non-expansive fill should extend laterally outward from the perimeter of the

structure and adjoining perimeter walkways a minimum of 5 feet on every side unless

obstructed by improvements to remain. In exterior walkways not adjacent to building

areas, and in pavement areas, the “non-expansive fill” should extend laterally no less

than 2 feet beyond the back of curb, or edge of pavements, and sidewalks unless

obstructed by improvements to remain. The “non-expansive” fill should meet the

requirements given in Section 4.1.4, “Material for Engineered Fill” and should be placed

and compacted in accordance with Section 4.1.5, “Fill Placement and Compaction.”

4.1.4 Material for Engineered Fill

Inorganic on-site soils approved by a representative of Kleinfelder may be used as

engineered fill, except in areas where “non-expansive” import fill is recommended.

Additionally, on-site soils should not be used as engineered fill in areas that will be

subject to a combination of heavy loading, such as from footing foundations combined

with saturated subsurface conditions. This condition is generally not expected to occur

at the site, provided the buried stormwater management system is located under light

weight vehicle parking areas and/or landscape areas. If heavily loaded and potentially

saturated areas are later determined to exist, import fill would be required for backfill in

those areas. In general, areas that are covered in pavements or concrete slabs-on-

grade, have proper surface drainage, and that do not store concentrations of water for

extended lengths of time, are not expected to become saturated. For example the bus


wash area, if properly paved and drained of surface water, is not expected to become

saturated.

Inorganic soils may be defined as soils containing less than 3 percent of organic matter

by weight or free of visible organic matter deemed excessive by a representative of

Kleinfelder. In general, material for use as engineered fill should be free of deleterious

or oversized material, debris, or hazardous substances; should not contain rocks or

lumps larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension; should not contain more than 15

percent of material larger than 1½ inches; and should contain sufficient fines (8% to

40% fines) to allow excavations to be made without caving.

Imported soils should be “non-expansive” and meet the above requirements, should be

predominantly granular, and should have a plasticity index of 15 or less.

All proposed import fill must be approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to

delivery to the site. At least five (5) working days prior to importing to the site, a

representative sample of the proposed import fill should be delivered to our laboratory

for evaluation and possible testing.

4.1.5 Fill Placement and Compaction

Fill materials should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, each not exceeding 8

inches in uncompacted thickness. Compaction of fill should be performed by

mechanical means only. Due to equipment limitations, thinner lifts may be necessary to

achieve the recommended level of compaction. Relative compaction or compaction is

defined as the in-place dry density of the compacted soil divided by the laboratory

compacted maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest

edition), expressed as a percentage. A summary of our compaction recommendations is

included in table format in Appendix E.

Permanent cut slopes should be constructed no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical).

As previously discussed, we understand that plans include a 1:1 (H:V) cut slope above

the bus parking lot, to a maximum slope height of about 10 feet. Cut slopes of 1:1 (H:V)

are expected to require continuous erosion control and periodic maintenance for

surficial sloughing.


Permanent fill slopes should be fully keyed and benched into the back slope. Fill slopes

should be keyed at least 8 feet width and 2 feet deep below adjacent grade. The bottom

of the keyway should be sloped at least 2 percent downwards back into the slope.

Benches should be level or slope back into the back slope and should be no more than

3 feet in vertical separation and wide enough to allow compaction equipment. All fill

slopes steeper than 3:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) should be compacted to at least 95 percent

relative compaction full height. Based on the results of our slope stability analysis,

compacted engineered fill for slopes shall have a minimum remolded cohesion of 100

pounds per square foot and a minimum remolded phi angle of 30 degrees. Fill slopes up

to 10 feet in height may be constructed at 2:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) or flatter.

If taller slopes are planned, Kleinfelder should be consulted for additional

recommendations. Some surficial slumping could occur; proper erosion control and

timely maintenance will need to be implemented. Setback distances are essential and

are generally based on slope height and the sensitivity of the structure (building or

road). Kleinfelder should perform a detailed review if the proximity of the structure (from

the improvement to the top of the slope) is less than the slope height.

Grading operations during the wet season or in areas where the soils are saturated may

require provisions for drying prior to compaction. If the project necessitates fill

placement and compaction in wet conditions, Kleinfelder can provide alternatives for

drying the soil. Conversely, additional moisture may be required during the dry months.

Water trucks should be available in sufficient number to provide adequate watering

during subgrade preparation, fill placement and compaction.

4.1.6 Excavations and Utility Trench Backfill

Excavations for utility trenches, fuel islands, buried stormwater management systems,

and foundations should be readily made with either a conventional backhoe or

excavator. The walls of temporary trenches less than 5 feet in height, in the medium

dense to very dense silty sand and clayey sand soils, should stand near vertical with

minimal bracing, provided proper soil moisture content is maintained. Deeper trenches,

or trenches into loose sands, must be properly shored and/or braced. Alternatively,

temporary trenches may be constructed using sloping trench sidewalls. Sloping trench

sidewalls should be constructed no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal: vertical). In addition,

excavations should be located so that no structures are located above a plane projected


1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical upward from any point in an excavation, regardless of

whether it is shored or unshored. Trench stability should be evaluated prior to

occupation by construction personnel. All trenches should be constructed in accordance

with OSHA and Cal-OSHA Safety Standards. Safety in and around utility trenches is the

responsibility of the underground contractors.

Since groundwater is at least 30 feet below existing grade, we do not anticipate the

need for dewatering of excavations. Wet weather can impact construction, especially

where on-site soils have been compacted or where imported material is used. Refer to

Section 4.1.9 on “Wet Weather Construction.” If different soil or groundwater conditions

are encountered during construction than those encountered during our subsurface

exploration, Kleinfelder should be contacted to provide additional recommendations.

Utility trench pipe zone backfill, extending from the bottom of the trench to at least 1 foot

above the top of pipe, should consist of free-draining sand unless lean concrete is

specified. Above the pipe zone, underground utility trenches should be backfilled with

compacted engineered fill. Either approved on-site soil or imported sand may be used

for backfilling utility trenches. Trench backfill should be capped with at least 12 inches of

compacted, on-site soil similar to that of the adjoining subgrade. A summary of our

compaction recommendations is included in Appendix E. Compaction should be

performed by mechanical means only. Water-jetting or flooding to attain compaction of

backfill should not be permitted.

4.1.7 Surface Drainage

Final site grading should provide surface drainage away from existing and new

buildings, concrete slabs-on-grade and pavements to reduce the percolation of water

into the underlying soils. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed adjacent to

structures and on exterior flatwork and pavements. The ground surface should be

sloped away from the buildings a minimum of 4 percent in landscaped areas and 2

percent in paved areas. Rainwater collected on the roofs of buildings should be

transported through gutters, downspouts and closed pipes, which discharge on

pavements or lead directly to the site storm sewer system. If discharging onto the

pavement, safety of pedestrian traffic should be considered.


On-site soils are highly erodible and should be planted with erosion resistant vegetation

as soon as practicable. The erosion control vegetation should be planted early enough

before the winter rainy season to allow the vegetation to take root before the rainy

season. Ground cover will require periodic maintenance and a maintenance schedule

should be developed. Specific details regarding erosion control should be determined

by the Civil Engineer.

4.1.8 Seepage Control

We do not anticipate any significant seepage problems due to the porous sandy nature

of the on-site near-surface soils, provided water is not allowed to pond near proposed

pavements, foundations and slabs-on-grade. Features that do not impound water for

extended periods of time, such as drainage swales or where water sheets over

embankments do not require setbacks from road areas provided they drain away from

the pavements and do not trap water adjacent to the pavements. However, water

erosion of such features will need to be addressed.

We also understand that storm water retention/infiltration features are planned for the

project. These may consist of surface features and buried improvements. These

features will act as impoundment areas for on-site storm water, and water will

concentrate in these areas for extended time periods.

4.1.8.1 Surface Infiltration Features

We recommend that surface infiltration features be located to minimize the impact of the

storm water on the nearby pavements and foundations. To minimize impact on

pavements, we recommend infiltration features be located with the pavement soil

subgrade elevation (i.e. bottom of the aggregate base layer, or the bottom of the asphalt

concrete layer where aggregate base is not used) located at least 2 feet above a plane

projected 5:1 (horizontal: vertical) downward from the highest retained water elevation

(design water surface) of the adjacent impoundment area. Assuming level ground we

anticipate that this would result in off sets of about 10 to 15 feet from the pavements, or

closer where the bottoms of the features are excavated or lowered below the adjacent

grade. To minimize impact on foundations, we recommend infiltration features be

located so that the bottoms of the footings are at least 1 footing width or at least 2 feet,

whichever is greater length, above a plane projected 5:1 (horizontal:vertical) downward


from the highest retained water elevation (design water surface) of the adjacent

impoundment area.

In areas of the site where surface infiltration features must be located adjacent to areas

of extended flat pavements, such as in parking areas with bioswales, consideration

should be given to deepening curbs at the edges of the infiltration features to the bottom

of the drain rock layer. This will reduce the potential for rotation of the curb at the edge

of the feature due to infiltrating water softening the supporting soils.

4.1.8.2 Buried Storm Water Management Systems

Buried storm water management systems should be located in areas that will not be

subjected to high ground pressures that exist in areas such as foundation zones and

bus parking or traffic areas. Such improvements will need to be located in light weight

vehicle parking areas and landscape areas. Additionally, animal burrows in the existing

slopes could result in piping failures downslope of the buried storm water management

system. This will need to be mitigated by grading or site selection for the system. The

lower permeability of deeper on-site soils containing clayey fines and/or decomposed

sandstone will limit the total embedment depth of the buried storm water management

system. Our percolation test results are presented in Section 4.5, “Percolation

Characteristics of In-Situ Soils.” Bottoms of buried storm water management systems

should be located no closer than 30 feet horizontally from structures or the free face of a

slope and above a 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) slope projected downwards from the

bottoms of adjacent footings.

4.1.9 Wet Weather Construction

If site grading and construction is to be performed during the winter rainy months, the

owner and contractors should be fully aware of the potential impact of wet weather.

Rainstorms can cause delay to construction and damage to previously completed work,

such as saturating a compacted subgrade, or flooding an excavation. Runoff can also

cause erosion.

Earthwork during rainy months will require extra effort and caution by the contractors.

The soil may be too wet to compact which will require processing to dry the soil. The

grading contractor should be responsible to protect his work to avoid damage by

rainstorms, including smooth rolling to seal off a pad or subgrade surface to facilitate


drainage and to reduce rain damage, and covering the trenches with plastic sheeting.

Ponding water should be pumped out immediately. Construction in wet weather should

be addressed in the project construction bid documents and/or specifications. We

recommend the grading contractor submit a wet weather construction plan outlining

procedures they will employ to protect their work and to minimize damage to their work

by rainstorms.

4.1.10 Construction Observation

Variations in soil types and conditions are possible and may be encountered during

construction. In order to permit correlation between the soil data obtained during this

investigation and the actual soil conditions encountered during construction, we

recommend that Kleinfelder be retained to provide observation and testing services

during site earthwork and foundation construction. This will allow us the opportunity to

compare actual conditions exposed during construction with those encountered in our

investigation and to expedite supplemental recommendations if warranted by the

exposed conditions. All earthwork should be performed in accordance with the

recommendations presented in this report, or as recommended by Kleinfelder during

construction. Kleinfelder should be notified at least 2 working days before the start of

construction, and before the time when observation and testing services are needed.

We also recommend that Kleinfelder be retained to review your pre-final foundation and

grading plans and specifications. It has been our experience that this review provides

an opportunity to detect misinterpretation or misunderstandings before the start of

construction.

4.2 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS AND SETTLEMENT

4.2.1 Shallow Footing Foundations

Based on our investigation, the loads for the proposed structures can be supported by

spread footings bearing on onsite soils. The foundation elements should be embedded

at least 18 inches below pad grade or lowest adjacent finished grade whichever

provides a deeper embedment. The recommended allowable soil bearing pressures,

depth of embedment, and width of footings are presented below.


Table 4.1 Foundation Bearing Capacity Recommendations

Footing Type Allowable Bearing

Pressure (psf)* Minimum

Embedment (in)** Minimum Width

(in)

Continuous Footing 2,750 18 18

Isolated Footing 3,000 18 24

* Pounds per square foot, dead plus live load. Includes a factor of safety (FS) of 3.

** Below lowest adjacent grade defined as bottom of slab on the interior and finish grade at the exterior.

Allowable soil bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for transient loads such

as wind and seismic loads.

Lateral loads may be resisted by a combination of friction between the foundation

bottoms and the supporting subgrade, and by passive resistance acting against the

vertical faces of the foundations, including grade beams. An ultimate friction coefficient

of 0.35 between the foundation and supporting subgrade may be used. For passive

resistance, an ultimate equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot may be

used. Where ground slopes downwards away from the footings, such as may occur at

the proposed retaining wall, passive pressure should be neglected on the upper

portions of the footing within 5 feet horizontally of the slope face. (For example for a 5:1

horizontal: vertical slope downwards from the footing face, neglect the upper buried 1

foot of the footing for passive pressure resistance. For a 2:1 H:V slope, neglect the

upper buried 2½ feet of the footing.) Passive pressure should also be neglected in the

upper one foot unless the adjacent surface is confined by paving or flatwork. The friction

coefficient and passive resistance may be used concurrently.

Total estimated settlement of an individual spread foundation will vary depending on the

plan dimensions of the foundation and the actual load supported. Based on anticipated

foundation dimensions and loads, we estimate maximum settlement of foundations

designed and constructed in accordance with the preceding recommendations to be on

the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement between similarly loaded, adjacent footings is

expected to be less than ½ inch provided footings are founded on similar materials.

Settlement of all foundations is expected to occur rapidly and should be essentially

complete shortly after initial application of the loads. In the event of a major earthquake

in the site vicinity, we estimate that the additional total and differential ground settlement

as a result of dynamic compaction would be less than ¼ inch.


Where footings are located adjacent to below-grade structures or near major

underground utilities, the footings should extend below a 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical)

plane projected upward from the structure footing (or bottom if no footings) or the

bottom of the underground utility to avoid surcharging the below grade structure and

underground utility with building loads. Also, where utilities cross the perimeter footings

line, the trench backfill should consist of a vertical barrier of impervious type of material

or lean concrete. In addition, where utilities cross through or under exterior footings,

flexible waterproof caulking should be provided between the sleeve and the pipe. Utility

plans should be reviewed by Kleinfelder prior to trenching for conformance to these

requirements.

Concrete for footings should be placed neat against native soil or engineered fill. It is

critical that footing excavations not be allowed to dry before placing concrete. If

shrinkage cracks appear in the footing excavations, the excavations should be

thoroughly moistened to close all cracks prior to concrete placement. The footing

excavations should be monitored by a representative of Kleinfelder for compliance with

appropriate moisture control and to confirm the adequacy of the bearing materials. If

soft or loose materials are encountered at the bottom of the footing excavations, they

should be removed and replaced with lean concrete or engineered fill. Kleinfelder

should also be present during the excavation. If desired, unit prices for such excavation

and backfilling should be obtained during contractor bidding for this project.

4.2.2 Cast-In Drilled-Hole Pile Foundations (Drilled Piers)

The proposed retaining wall and fuel canopy structures may be supported on a cast-in-

drilled-hole (CIDH) pile (i.e. drilled pier) foundation system designed to derive support

from end bearing at the bottom of the pier (due to the low skin friction of the on-site

materials), and lateral resistance from passive soil pressure against the side of the pier.

The recommended allowable foundation loads presented in this section include a factor

of safety (FS) of 3.

Drilled pier embedment length may be controlled by various load cases in either axial

loading (compression or uplift) or lateral loading; however, drilled piers should be at

least 10 feet in depth and at least 18 inches in diameter. The drilled piers should be

located no closer together than three pier diameters on-center.


The allowable end bearing capacity for drilled piers should be taken as 8,000 psf in the

native soil materials. The weight of the buried portion of the pier may be neglected when

calculating the downward axial loads on the pier. A one-third increase in the allowable

capacity may be used for consideration of transient loads such as wind or seismic.

For resistance to uplift of the foundation an ultimate skin friction of 3500 pounds total

per pier, plus the weight of the pier may be used. The skin friction assumes an 18 inch

diameter 10 foot deep pier. The skin friction may be scaled up proportionally to the

surface area of the pier due to increased width or depth.

For drilled shafts designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations

presented in this report, total settlement of each drilled shaft is expected to be less than

about 1 inch, with differential settlement between adjacent supports of up to about 1/2

inch. The majority of the settlement should occur during and shortly after application of

the structure loads.

Pier foundation resistance to lateral loads will be provided by passive resistance of the

soil against shafts, pier caps, and grade beams (if present) and by the bending stiffness

of the pier shafts. The lateral resistance of a drilled pier is a function of the surrounding

soil strength and stiffness, size and stiffness of the pier, pier top connection, and

induced moments and forces at the top of the pier. For pier caps and grade beams, the

ultimate passive pressure available in undisturbed native soil or compacted engineered

fill may be taken as equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid weighing 350 pounds

per cubic foot (pcf) acting on two pier diameter for the portion of the pier foundation

embedded in firm soil. Where ground slopes downwards away from the pier foundation,

such as may occur at the proposed retaining wall, passive pressure should be

neglected on the upper portions of the pier (and grade beam) within 5 feet horizontally

of the slope face. (For example for a 5:1 horizontal: vertical slope downwards from the

downslope edge of the pier, neglect the upper buried 1 foot of the pier for passive

pressure resistance. For a 2:1 H:V slope, neglect the upper buried 2½ feet of the pier.)

This passive pressure value is an allowable value derived using an estimated shaft

head deflection of about ½ inch. We anticipate that there may be a variety of pier lateral

loading conditions due to the configuration of the proposed structure. The appropriate

factor of safety for lateral load resistance will depend on the design condition and

should be selected by the designer.


The structural engineer should determine the actual embedded depth based on the

lateral loads transmitted to the foundations. Once the structural loading information is

available, if requested, Kleinfelder can assist in determining the shear, moments and

lateral displacement for the piers based on the design loads.

We note that attention must be given to the method of drilled pier construction to satisfy

the above recommendations. The need for slurry is not anticipated due to groundwater

being at least 30 feet below existing grade, and to allow inspection of the bottom of the

shaft. Sandy soils were encountered in our borings; therefore, casing should be

available onsite to facilitate supporting the excavations if needed. Highly weathered to

decomposed sandstone material was encountered in some of our borings; therefore,

rock augers or rock drilling buckets will likely be required. Steel reinforcement and

concrete should be placed within about 4 to 6 hours of completion of each drilled hole.

As a minimum, the holes should be poured the same day they are drilled. The bottom of

the drilled holes should be cleaned to remove as much loose soil as practical prior to

placement of concrete. A representative from Kleinfelder should be present to observe

drilled holes to confirm the soils encountered are capable of carrying the design loads

and that bottom conditions are satisfactory prior to placing steel reinforcement.

The steel reinforcement should be centered in the drilled hole. Concrete should be

discharged vertically with a tremie pipe from the shaft bottom upward at a rate in which

the tremie nozzle does not become separated from the placed concrete by more than

three feet. Under no circumstances should concrete be allowed to free-fall against either

the steel reinforcement or the sides of the excavation during construction. Sufficient

vibration should be performed while the concrete is tremied to minimize voids and

properly derive the frictional shaft surface to satisfy uplift design requirements.

Prior to mobilizing drilling equipment to the site, the foundation contractor should submit

to Kleinfelder a construction plan describing the procedures it intends to utilize in the

CIDH pile (drilled pier) construction process. Kleinfelder should review this plan and

confirm that the procedures conform to the recommendations provided herein.


4.3 RETAINING STRUCTURES

A new retaining wall is planned on the western portion of the site above Canyon Del

Rey Boulevard. We understand that this wall will be approximately 10 feet in height, and

will primarily retain engineered fill and pavements areas.

Retaining walls may be supported on deepened continuous conventional footings or

CIDH piles (drilled piers) designed in accordance with our recommendations presented

above. Flexible walls that are free to deflect at the top may be designed for an active

lateral earth pressure calculated using an equivalent fluid weight of 40 pounds per cubic

foot where the backfill is level if the retaining wall is backfilled with on-site soil or

approved import fill material. Rigid walls that are constrained against movement at the

top should be designed for an "at-rest" lateral earth pressure calculated using an

equivalent fluid weight of 60 pounds per cubic foot where the backfill is level if the

retaining wall is backfilled with on-site soil or approved import fill material. The above

pressure values apply to horizontal backfill and do not include hydrostatic pressures that

might be caused by groundwater or water trapped behind the structure.

For seismic lateral surcharge loads, a design peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.57g

was used in the analysis which resulted in an additional seismic pressure of 15H

pounds per square foot (where H is the total height of the wall in feet) for flexible walls

that are free to defect at the top, and an additional seismic pressure of 33H pounds per

square foot for rigid walls that are constrained against movement at the top. This

additional seismic pressure should be applied as a rectangular distribution over the

entire depth of the wall.

In addition to lateral earth pressures and seismic surcharges, retaining walls must be

designed to resist horizontal pressures that may be generated by surcharge loads

applied at the ground surface such as from uniform loads or vehicle loads. For uniform

loads, such as floor live loads, an additional uniform lateral surcharge equal to 50

percent of the vertical live loads should be applied on the wall. For occasional fork-lift or

light vehicle loads, we recommend adding an additional uniform lateral surcharge

pressure of 50 pounds per square foot. Heavy vehicle loads, such as from busses or

heavy trucks is best evaluated once the position, type, magnitude and frequency of the

loads, is determined. Kleinfelder should be consulted to provide specific

recommendations for heavy vehicle loads once this information is available. For initial


planning purposes, an estimated additional uniform lateral surcharge pressure of 250

pounds per square foot is recommended. For other loads, such as point or line loads,

the additional lateral surcharge will depend on the position, type and magnitude of the

loads, and Kleinfelder should be consulted to provide specific recommendations.

Retaining walls higher than 2 feet should be fully drained. Drainage may be provided by

a prefabricated drainage system, such as Mirafi Miradrain 6000/6200, or a 1 to 2 foot

wide zone of 3/4-inch by No. 4 crushed, clean rock wrapped in a layer of non-woven

geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi 140NC or equivalent. Class 2 Permeable material

(Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 68) may be used in lieu of the clean crushed

rock and filter fabric. The gravel drain should extend from the base of the wall to within

about one foot of the top of the wall. The upper one foot of the backfill should consist of

compacted native soil graded to direct surface water away from the walls. A 4-inch

diameter, rigid perforated pipe surrounded by the gravel drainage blanket should be

installed at the base of the wall to collect and transport the water away from the wall

toward a suitable discharge point. The pipe should be sloped to drain by gravity to

appropriate outlets. The pipe should be placed on approximately 4 inches of gravel

bedding with perforations placed down. The pipe should consist of solid walled pipe

where located away from the base of the wall. Similarly, a collector pipe will be required

where drainage panels are installed.

Where migration of moisture through the retaining wall would be detrimental or

undesirable, the retaining wall should be waterproofed as specified by the project

architect.

Backfill against wall structures should be properly compacted. Over-compaction should

be avoided because increased compaction can result in lateral pressures significantly

higher than those recommended above. Wall backfill should be spread in level lifts not

exceeding 6 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to not less than 90

percent relative compaction, per ASTM D1557 latest edition, at over the optimum

moisture content. Retaining walls may be subjected to higher stress during placement of

wall backfill where large or heavy grading equipment is used. This should be considered

by the wall designer and contractor, and bracing during construction may be required.

Compaction of wall backfill within 5 feet of the wall should be performed by hand-

operated equipment.


We recommend that design drawings of retaining walls showing height of wall, backfill

material type, drainage details and the earth pressures used in design be reviewed by

Kleinfelder for conformance to the recommendations given. Certain proprietary wall

systems, such as reinforced earth walls, segmental block walls, and criblock walls, are

design-built systems requiring close coordination with the Civil Engineer on drainage

outlets and connections. If any proprietary walls are planned, we strongly recommend

that we review the type of wall proposed and make alternate appropriate lateral earth

pressure recommendations for these walls. Furthermore, we recommend that

Kleinfelder be retained to review design plans prior to issuance for construction.

4.4 VEHICLE PAVEMENTS

Pavements for this project are anticipated to consist of parking and access areas for

passenger cars and light pickup trucks, and heavy traffic areas for busses and garbage

trucks. Traffic loading information for this project is based on our experience with similar

projects. Based on our experience, we suggest using a Traffic Index (TI) of at least 4.5

for automobile parking areas, a TI of at least 5.5 for automobile and light truck traffic

lanes, and a TI of at least 6.5 for garbage truck areas. We estimate that a Traffic Index

of 7.0 to 8.0 will be used for areas servicing busses. For heavy vehicle areas, a

minimum asphalt concrete section of 4½ inches is recommended. The anticipated traffic

and the alternate pavement sections presented should be reviewed by the project civil

engineer in consultation with the owner during the development of the final grading and

paving plans.

4.4.1 Flexible Asphalt Pavements

Bulk samples of the near surface soil were obtained from the site during our field

investigation. The results of our laboratory testing indicate R-Values of 7 and 57. The R-

value of 7 material was encountered in the bus parking area on the northern portion of

the site, on the flatter upper portion of the lot. The R-Value of 57 material was

encountered in the automobile parking lot on the south side of the site, near the south

slope. The recommended pavement sections are presented in the tables below. We

have made our pavement designs based on the pavement subgrade soil consisting of

existing on-site surface material (i.e. clayey sand and silty sand with gravel). If site

grading exposes soil other than that utilized in our analysis, we should perform

additional tests to confirm or revise the recommended pavement sections to reflect the

actual field conditions.


Asphalt concrete should meet the requirements for 1/2- or 3/4-inch maximum, medium

Type A or Type B asphalt concrete as specified in Section 39 of the Caltrans Standard

Specifications. Class 2 aggregate base materials should conform to the requirements

presented in Section 26 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications. Class 2 aggregate

subbase materials should conform to the requirements presented in Section 25 of the

Caltrans Standard Specifications, with a minimum R-Value of 50. Asphalt concrete and

aggregate base, and preparation of the subgrade should conform to, and be placed in

accordance with, the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications,

except as noted herein. ASTM Test procedures should be used to assess the percent

relative compaction of soils, aggregate base and asphalt concrete. Asphalt concrete

should be compacted to between 95 percent and 96 percent of the maximum

compacted unit weight.

Table 4.2 Flexible Asphalt Concrete Pavement Alternatives R-Value = 7

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION ALTERNATIVES

R-Value = 7 (All areas except the existing southern parking lot containing Boring B-6)

Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete

(inches) Class 2 Aggregate

Base (inches) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (inches)

4.5 2.5 9.0 -

2.5 4.5 5.0

5.0 2.5 10.5 -

2.5 5.0 6.0

5.5 3.0 11.5 -

3.0 5.5 6.5

6.0 3.0 13.0 -

3.0 6.5 7.5

6.5 3.5 14.5 -

3.5 6.5 8.5

7.0 4.0 15.0 -

4.0 6.5 9.5

7.5 4.5 16.0 -

4.5 7.0 10.0

8.0 4.5 17.5 -

4.5 8.0 10.5

*Note: AC = Type A or B Asphalt Concrete AB = Class 2 Aggregate Base (Minimum R-Value = 78) ASB = Class 2 Aggregate Subbase Minimum R-Value = 50


Table 4.3 Flexible Asphalt Concrete Pavement Alternatives R-Value = 57

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION ALTERNATIVES

R-Value = 57 (Southern parking lot containing Boring B-6)

Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete (inches) Class 2 Aggregate Base

(inches)

4.5 4.0 -

2.5 4.0

5.0 4.5 -

2.5 4.0

5.5 5.0 -

3.0 4.0

6.0 5.5 -

3.0 4.0

6.5 6.0 -

3.5 4.0

7.0 6.5 -

4.0 4.0

7.5 7.5 -

4.5 4.0

8.0 8.0 -

4.5 4.0

*Note: AC = Type A or B Asphalt Concrete AB = Class 2 Aggregate Base (Minimum R-Value = 78)

Parking areas should be sloped at a minimum of 2 percent and drainage gradients

maintained to carry all surface water off the site. Surface water ponding should not be

allowed anywhere on the site during or after construction. Seepage cut-offs should be

constructed as discussed previously in Section 4.1.

4.4.2 Rigid Concrete Pavements

Rigid pavements consisting of Portland cement concrete may also be considered. We

recommend that the pavement sections presented be reviewed by the project Civil

Engineer in consultation with AECOM and Monterey Salinas Transit District during the

development of the final grading plans.


Portland cement concrete pavements should be constructed on a minimum 12-inch

thick layer of Class 2 Aggregate Base over the subgrade. Preparation of soil subgrade

and compaction of the aggregate base should follow the recommendations given above

in Section 4.1. The compacted subgrade and the aggregate base should be non-

yielding.

Using the above design parameters and the Portland Cement Association Simplified

Design Procedure, we recommend the use of a minimum concrete pavement thickness

of 4.5 inches for light vehicle areas and 6.5 inches in areas that will experience heavy

truck or bus traffic. Our design is based on a combined modulus of subgrade reaction of

approximately 130 pci at the top of the aggregate base, a concrete shoulder or curb

without doweled joints, and a modulus of rupture for the concrete of 600 pounds per

square inch. If a concrete shoulder or curb will not be used, then the above minimum

concrete pavement thicknesses should be increased by on inch. It should be noted that

the modulus of rupture for concrete is based on flexural strength, not compressive

strength, and should be specified accordingly. Our experience is that the compressive

strength will be on the order of 4,500 to 5,000 psi to achieve the required flexural

strength. Concrete with a compressive strength of 3,000 psi is not expected to provide

the desired flexural strength. Laboratory testing to evaluate the design strength is

recommended.

4.5 PERCOLATION CHARACTERISTICS OF IN-SITU SOILS

Presaturation of the percolation test holes was completed on November 20, 2014, 24

hours prior to percolation testing. Presaturation consisted of filling the prepared holes

with water.

Percolation testing was performed on the morning and afternoon of November 21, 2014.

For the percolation holes we generally used a 10-minute measurement interval. The

location of our exploratory borings and percolation test holes are presented on the Site

Plan, Plate 2. The results of the percolation testing are presented in Appendix B and

summarized in the table below. The raw stabilized rates are presented at the bottom of

the tables.


Generally, percolation rates of the upper silty sand soils encountered above

approximately 9 to 13 feet bgs were measured to be about 3 to 6 minutes per inch raw

stabilized rate (i.e. percolation test holes P-1 to P-3). The percolation rates of the

deeper clayey sand soils encountered in P-1 to P-3 were too “slow” to accurately

measure over the given testing period. It should be noted that the rates presented are

raw stabilized rates. We have not applied any corrections for the hole diameter, pea

gravel, or slotted pipe.

Table 4.4 Percolation Test Results

Location Total Hole

Depth (feet) Soil Type

Percolation Rate

(min / inch)

Slow Percolation Below (feet)

P-1 13.4 SM/SC 5.6 10.4

P-2 13.5 SM/SC 2.7 13.1

P-3 13.2 SM/SC 3.6 8.9

Our scope-of-work was limited to testing, and excludes evaluation of the general

suitability of the sites for the infiltration system, evaluation of the storage capacity and

permeability of the in-situ soils, nor actual design of the infiltration system. The

proposed storm water management system design should be performed by the project

civil engineer.


5. LIMITATIONS

This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill

ordinarily exercised by other members of Kleinfelder’s profession practicing in the same

locality, under similar conditions and at the date the services are provided. Our

conclusions, opinions and recommendations are based on a limited number of

observations and data. It is possible that conditions could vary between or beyond the

data evaluated. Kleinfelder makes no other representation, guarantee or warranty,

express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report,

opinion, or instrument of service provided.

This report may be used only by AECOM and Monterey Salinas Transit District and the

registered design professional in responsible charge and only for the purposes stated

for this specific engagement within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event

later than two (2) years from the date of the report.

The work performed was based on project information provided by AECOM and

Monterey Salinas Transit District. As part of our scope of services, Kleinfelder will be

performing a review of the pre-final plans and specifications for this project. Please

forward the pre-final plans and specifications to us when they are completed for our

review. If AECOM and Monterey Salinas Transit District does not retain Kleinfelder to

review any plans and specifications, including any revisions or modifications to the

plans and specifications, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for the suitability of our

recommendations. In addition, if there are any changes in the field to the plans and

specifications, AECOM and Monterey Salinas Transit District must obtain written

approval from Kleinfelder’s engineer that such changes do not affect our

recommendations. Failure to do so will vitiate Kleinfelder’s recommendations.

The scope of services was limited to nine borings, percolation testing, laboratory testing

of selected soil samples, engineering analysis, and preparation of this report. It should

be recognized that definition and evaluation of subsurface conditions are difficult.

Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with

incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions present due to the limitations of

data from field studies. The conclusions of this assessment are based on nine borings

to a maximum depth of about 30 feet below the existing ground surface, previous data


collected by Kleinfelder on this site, laboratory testing of natural moisture content and

density, grain size distribution, plasticity, unconfined compression testing and

percolation testing of the site soils, and engineering analyses.

Kleinfelder offers various levels of investigative and engineering services to suit the

varying needs of different clients. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed

and extensive studies yield more information, which may help understand and manage

the level of risk. Since detailed study and analysis involves greater expense, our clients

participate in determining levels of service, which provide information for their purposes

at acceptable levels of risk. The client and key members of the design team should

discuss the issues covered in this report with Kleinfelder, so that the issues are

understood and applied in a manner consistent with the owner’s budget, tolerance of

risk and expectations for future performance and maintenance.

Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and

subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the

proposed construction. It is possible that soil, rock or groundwater conditions could vary

between or beyond the points explored. If soil, rock or groundwater conditions are

encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, the client is

responsible for ensuring that Kleinfelder is notified immediately so that we may

reevaluate the recommendations of this report. If the scope of the proposed

construction, including the estimated structural loads, and the design depths or

locations of the foundations, changes from that described in this report, the conclusions

and recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid unless the

changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or approved in

writing, by Kleinfelder.

As the geotechnical engineering firm that performed the geotechnical evaluation for this

project, Kleinfelder should be retained to confirm that the recommendations of this

report are properly incorporated in the design of this project, and properly implemented

during construction. This may avoid misinterpretation of the information by other parties

and will allow us to review and modify our recommendations if variations in the soil

conditions are encountered.


As a minimum Kleinfelder should be retained to provide the following continuing

services for the project:

Review the project pre-final plans and specifications, including any revisions or

modifications;

Observe and evaluate the site earthwork operations to confirm subgrade soils

are suitable for construction and placement of engineered fill;

Observe and evaluate cut slope and fill slope construction;

Observe excavations and confirm that engineered fill and backfill for utilities and

other buried improvements are placed and compacted per the project

specifications;

Observe foundation excavations to confirm subsurface conditions are as

anticipated and to verify adequate geotechnical support for the proposed

improvements;

Observe retaining wall construction and backfill; and

Observe asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete pavement construction.

The scope of services for this subsurface exploration and geotechnical report did not

include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence

of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this

site.

Kleinfelder cannot be responsible for interpretation by others of this report or the

conditions encountered in the field. Kleinfelder must be retained so that all geotechnical

aspects of construction will be monitored on a full-time basis by a representative from

Kleinfelder, including site preparation, preparation of foundations, and placement of

engineered fill and trench backfill. These services provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to

observe the actual soil, rock and groundwater conditions encountered during

construction and to evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this

report to the site conditions. If Kleinfelder is not retained to provide these services, we

will cease to be the geotechnical engineer of record for this project and will assume no

responsibility for any potential claim during or after construction on this project. If

changed site conditions affect the recommendations presented herein, Kleinfelder must


also be retained to perform a supplemental evaluation and to issue a revision to our

original report.

This report, and any future addenda or reports regarding this site, may be made

available to bidders to supply them with only the data contained in the report regarding

subsurface conditions and laboratory test results at the point and time noted. Bidders

may not rely on interpretations, opinion, recommendations, or conclusions contained in

the report. Because of the limited nature of any subsurface study, the contractor may

encounter conditions during construction which differ from those presented in this

report. In such event, the contractor should promptly notify the owner so that

Kleinfelder’s geotechnical engineer can be contacted to confirm those conditions. We

recommend the contractor describe the nature and extent of the differing conditions in

writing and that the construction contract include provisions for dealing with differing

conditions. Contingency funds should be reserved for potential problems during

earthwork and foundation construction. Furthermore, the contractor should be prepared

to handle contamination conditions if encountered at this site, which may affect the

excavation, removal, or disposal of soil; dewatering of excavations; and health and

safety of workers.


6. REFERENCES

California Geological Survey (2010), Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zones of California; CD 2000-003; updated through December

2010 at: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm.

Clark, J.C., Dupre, W.R., and Rosenberg, L.I., 1997, Geologic map of the Monterey and

Seaside 7.5-minute quadrangles, Monterey County, California: a digital database:

U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-97-30, scale 1:24,000.

Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2007, Geologic map of the Monterey and Seaside

quadrangles, Monterey County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee

Foundation Map DF-346, scale 1:24,000.

Dupre, W.R., 1990, Maps showing geology and liquefaction susceptibility of Quaternary

deposits in the Monterey, Seaside, Spreckels, and Carmel Valley quadrangles,

Monterey County, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies

Map MF-2096, scale 1:24,000.

Petersen, Mark D., Frankel, Arthur D., Harmsen, Stephen C., Mueller, Charles S.,

Haller, Kathleen M., Wheeler, Russell L., Wesson, Robert L., Zeng, Yuehua, Boyd,

Oliver S., Perkins, David M., Luco, Nicolas, Field, Edward H., Wills, Chris J., and

Rukstales, Kenneth S. (2008), “Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United

States National Seismic Hazard Maps,” U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report

2008–1128, 61 p.

Donald Tharp and Associates (1993), Soil and Foundation Investigation, Repair of

Small Slope Failure, Ryan Ranch Road and Highway 218, Monterey, California.

Weber Hayes and Associates (1993), Preliminary Geologic Letter Report for the

October 1993 Highway 218 Slope Failure, Monterey Salinas Transit, Monterey

County, California

http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm

http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_18696.htm







PLATES

APPENDIX A

Field Explorations

PLATE

A-1MONTEREY - SALINAS TRANSIT DISTRICTOPERATION & MAINTENANCE FACILITY

1 RYAN RANCH ROADMONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

The report and graphics key are an integral part of these logs. Alldata and interpretations in this log are subject to the explanations andlimitations stated in the report.

Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximateboundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual or differ fromthose shown.

No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil or rockconditions between individual sample locations.

Logs represent general soil or rock conditions observed at thepoint of exploration on the date indicated.

In general, Unified Soil Classification System designationspresented on the logs were based on visual classification in the fieldand were modified where appropriate based on gradation and indexproperty testing.

Fine grained soils that plot within the hatched area on thePlasticity Chart, and coarse grained soils with between 5% and 12%passing the No. 200 sieve require dual USCS symbols, ie., GW-GM,GP-GM, GW-GC, GP-GC, GC-GM, SW-SM, SP-SM, SW-SC, SP-SC,SC-SM.

If sampler is not able to be driven at least 6 inches then 50/Xindicates number of blows required to drive the identified sampler Xinches with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches.

_

SILTY SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL-SILTMIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL-CLAYMIXTURES

SW-SM

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-SILT-CLAYMIXTURES

CL

CL-ML

>

<

<

SANDSWITH5% TO12%

FINES

SANDSWITH >

12%FINES

SA

ND

S (

Mor

e th

an h

alf o

f coa

rse

frac

tion

is s

mal

ler

than

the

#4 s

ieve

)

WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVELMIXTURES WITH LITTLE FINES

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3>

CLEANGRAVEL

WITH<5%

FINES

GRAVELSWITH5% TO12%

FINES

OL

CH

CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

GRAVELSWITH >

12%FINES

>

Cu 4 and1 Cc 3

>_

_

BULK SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA SAMPLER(3 in. (76.2 mm.) outer diameter)

STANDARD PENETRATION SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER(2 in. (50.8 mm.) outer diameter and 1-3/8 in. (34.9 mm.) innerdiameter)

_

GM

GC

GW

GP

GW-GM

GW-GC

_ _

_

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYCLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

GRAPHICS KEY

<

SAMPLE/SAMPLER TYPE GRAPHICS

>

<

<

>

CLEANSANDSWITH<5%

FINES

GR

AV

EL

S (

Mor

e th

an h

alf o

f coa

rse

frac

tion

is la

rger

than

the

#4 s

ieve

)

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3

>

Cu 6 and1 Cc 3

SC-SM

Cu 4 and1 Cc 3

< _

ORGANIC SILTS & ORGANIC SILTY CLAYSOF LOW PLASTICITY

SILTS AND CLAYS(Liquid Limitless than 50)

SILTS AND CLAYS(Liquid Limit

greater than 50)

WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVELMIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS,SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITHLITTLE OR NO FINES

MH

OH

ML

GC-GM

CO

AR

SE

GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

(M

ore

than

hal

f of m

ater

ial i

s la

rger

than

the

#200

sie

ve)

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)

<

Cu 6 and1 Cc 3

GP-GM

GP-GC

_

_ _<

>

<

<

>

SP

SP-SM

SP-SC

SM

SC

< _<

>

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITHLITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITHLITTLE OR NO FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITHLITTLE FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITHLITTLE CLAY FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITHLITTLE FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITHLITTLE CLAY FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SILT-SANDMIXTURES

CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY-SILT MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVELMIXTURES WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS,SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITHLITTLE CLAY FINES

SW

SW-SC

POORLY GRADED SANDS,SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITHLITTLE FINES

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3>

>

FIN

E G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

S(M

ore

than

hal

f of m

ater

ial

is s

mal

ler

than

the

#200

sie

ve)

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, SILTY ORCLAYEY FINE SANDS, SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

ORGANIC CLAYS & ORGANIC SILTS OFMEDIUM-TO-HIGH PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAYS

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS ORDIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILT

INORGANIC CLAYS-SILTS OF LOW PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYCLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

GROUND WATER GRAPHICS

OBSERVED SEEPAGE

WATER LEVEL (level after exploration completion)

WATER LEVEL (level where first observed)

WATER LEVEL (additional levels after exploration)

NOTES

DRAWN BY: JDS

CHECKED BY: AB

DATE: 12/2/2014

REVISED: -

PLO

TT

ED

: 12

/05/

201

4 1

1:2

6 A

M B

Y:

jsal

a

PROJECT NO.: 20153715

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\201

4\1

4pro

ject

s\20

1537

15-M

st\2

015

371

5 B

logs

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: R

:KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

4.G

LB

[GE

O-L

EG

EN

D 1

(G

RA

PH

ICS

KE

Y)

WIT

H U

SC

S]

(# blows/ft) (# blows/ft)

PLATE

(# blows/ft)

A-2MONTEREY - SALINAS TRANSIT DISTRICTOPERATION & MAINTENANCE FACILITY


The thread is easy to roll and not much time

5 - 12

A 1/8-in. (3 mm.) thread cannot be rolled at

5 - 15

15 - 4040 - 70

35 - 65

15 - 35

>70

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular

DENSITY

0 - 15

crumbling when drier than the plastic limit

lumps which resist further breakdown

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated

Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little resistance

APPARENT

10 - 3030 - 50

>50

less than 1/4-in. thick, note thickness

> 8000

Firm

Hard

Very Hard

Non-plastic

Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

NOTE: AFTER TERZAGHI AND PECK, 1948

<4

65 - 85

Boulders

Green YellowGreen

Blue GreenBlue

Purple BluePurple

Red Purple

4000 - 8000

Weakly

Moderately

Strongly

FIELD TESTDESCRIPTION

It takes considerable time rolling and kneading

coarse

ABBR

R

YGYG

BG

RedYellow Red

Yellow

<5(%)

SAMPLER

or thread cannot be formed when drier than the

any water content.

The thread can barely be rolled and the lump

when drier than the plastic limit

FIELD TEST

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

SubangularRounded Angular

CRITERIA

Very Soft

Soft

Subrounded

Gravel

Sand

Fines

Thumb will penetrate soil more than 1 in. (25 mm.)

Wet

fine

coarse

fine

#10 - #4

GRAINSIZE

>12 in. (304.8 mm.)

3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.)

0.19 - 0.75 in. (4.8 - 19 mm.)

< 1000

SOIL DESCRIPTION KEY

FIELD TESTDESCRIPTION

plastic limit.

the plastic limit. The lump or thread crumbles

limit. The lump or thread can be formed without

Same color and appearance throughout

DESCRIPTION

Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses

CRITERIA

Alternating layers of varying material or color with the layer

0.0029 - 0.017 in. (0.07 - 0.43 mm.)

0.017 - 0.079 in. (0.43 - 2 mm.)

to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be

Lensed

Blocky

Slickensided

Fissured

Laminated

Stratified

DESCRIPTION

None

Strong

Rounded

DESCRIPTION

Cobbles

Thumbnail will not indent soil

Thumb will penetrate soil about 1 in. (25 mm.)

CRITERIA

No visible reaction

Some reaction, with bubbles forming slowly

Violent reaction, with bubbles forming immediately

Weak

0.079 - 0.19 in. (2 - 4.9 mm.)

SPT-N60

Thumb will not indent soil but readily indented with thumbnail

Very DenseDense

Medium Dense

FIELD TEST

NP

< 30

> 50

<0.0029 in. (<0.07 mm.)

rerolled several times after reaching the plastic

SubroundedParticles have smoothly curved sides and no edges

Particles have nearly plane sides but havewell-rounded corners and edges

Particles are similar to angular description but have

of sand scattered through a mass of clay; note thickness

Thumb will indent soil about 1/4-in. (6 mm.)

to fracturing

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers

Angular

Subangular

LL

30 - 50

Particles have sharp edges and relatively planesides with unpolished surfaces

rounded edges

at least 1/4-in. thick, note thickness

CONSISTENCY

medium

Loose

Very Loose

DENSITY

1000 - 2000

Homogeneous

DESCRIPTION

Dry

Moist

is required to reach the plastic limit.The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching

>6035 - 60

CALIFORNIA

4 - 10

NAME

YR

BPBP

RP

#40 - #10

#200 - #10

Passing #200

3 - 12 in. (76.2 - 304.8 mm.)

3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.)

#4 - 3/4 in. (#4 - 19 mm.)

SIEVESIZE

>12 in. (304.8 mm.)

3 - 12 in. (76.2 - 304.8 mm.)

Pea-sized to thumb-sized

Thumb-sized to fist-sized

Larger than basketball-sized

Fist-sized to basketball-sized

Flour-sized and smaller

Rock salt-sized to pea-sized

Sugar-sized to rock salt-sized

Flour-sized to sugar-sized

SIZEAPPROXIMATE

RELATIVE

85 - 100

<4

MODIFIED CASAMPLER

DESCRIPTION

12 - 35

Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight

Crumbles or breaks with considerable

Will not crumble or break with finger pressure

finger pressure

finger pressure

Black N

2000 - 4000

UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH (qu)(psf)

STRUCTURE

CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL

MOISTURE CONTENT

APPARENT / RELATIVE DENSITY - COARSE-GRAINED SOIL

CEMENTATION

Munsell Color

PLASTICITY

REACTION WITH HYDROCHLORIC ACID

GRAIN SIZE

ANGULARITY

DRAWN BY: JDS

CHECKED BY: AB

DATE: 12/2/2014

REVISED: -

PLO

TT

ED

: 12

/05/

201

4 1

1:2

6 A

M B

Y:

jsal

a


gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\201

4\1

4pro

ject

s\20

1537

15-M

st\2

015

371

5 B

logs

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: R

:KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

4.G

LB

[GE

O-L

EG

EN

D 2

(S

OIL

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N K

EY

)]

approximate 6 inches of asphalt

approximate 6 inches of aggregate baserock

Poorly-graded SAND (SP): fine grained, lightgray, moist, medium dense, with some silt, withtrace fine sub-rounded gravel

Silty SAND (SM): fine to coarse grained, lightolive brown, moist, medium dense, trace finesub-rounded gravelfine grained at 4'

Decomposed to highly weathered Sandstone-as Clayey Sand (SC): fine to coarse grained,medium to high plasticity, dark brown, with palegray, moist, dense, with layers of orange-brownmottled pale gray sandstone

fine grained, low plasticity

medium plasticity, medium dense

low plasticity, dense

The exploration was terminated atapproximately 30 ft. below ground surface. Theexploration was backfilled with auger cuttingsand patched at surface on November 21, 2014.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

12"

12"

28 4

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: Groundwater was not encountered during drilling or aftercompletion.GENERAL NOTES:

BC=111623

BC=141618

BC=141520

BC=211620

BC=162027

BC=8914

BC=121422

LABORATORY RESULTS

Lithologic Description

PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

1 of 1

BORING LOG B-1

BORING LOG B-1 PLATE

A-3

Surface Condition: Asphalt

A. BordLogged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Type - Drop:Not Available B-53

J.R. & R.N.

Exploration Geoservices

140 lb. Sandline - 30 in.

-90 degreesPlunge:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

11/21/2014

8 in. O.D.

Hollow Stem Auger /

Overcast Exploration Diameter:

Add

ition

al T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t Wt.

(pcf

)

Pas

sing

#4

(%)

Pas

sing

#20

0 (%

)

Liqu

id L

imit

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

onP

last

ic)

MONTEREY - SALINAS TRANSIT DISTRICTOPERATION & MAINTENANCE FACILITY


Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

Blo

ws/

6 in

.

CHECKED BY: AB

DATE: 12/3/2014

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED: 12/19/2014

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\201

4\1

4pro

ject

s\20

1537

15-M

st\2

015

371

5 B

logs

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_BO

RIN

G/T

ES

T P

IT S

OIL

LO

G]

PLO

TT

ED

: 01

/12/

201

5 0

7:3

4 A

M B

Y:

jsal

a


Sam

ple

Typ

e

approximate 5-1/2 inches of asphalt


Clayey SAND (SC): fine to coarse grained,medium plasticity, brown, moist, very dense,with some fine to medium sub-rounded gravel

Silty SAND (SM): fine grained, low plasticity,gray brown, moist, dense, trace largesub-rounded gravel

Clayey SAND with Gravel (SC): fine grained,yellowish brown, moist, dense, fine sub-roundedgravel

Clayey SAND (SC): fine grained, mediumplasticity, light olive, moist, dense, trace finesub-rounded gravel

Silty SAND (SM): fine grained, low plasticity,light brown, moist, medium dense

dense


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

12"

18"16.3 107.5

29

24

37 21


BC=304239

BC=142132

BC=142124

BC=131418

BC=141727

BC=111113

BC=141927

LABORATORY RESULTS


PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

1 of 1

BORING LOG B-2


A-4


A. BordLogged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:


J.R. & R.N.



-90 degreesPlunge:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

11/21/2014

8 in. O.D.

Hollow Stem Auger /


Add

ition

al T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t Wt.

(pcf

)

Pas

sing

#4

(%)

Pas

sing

#20

0 (%

)

Liqu

id L

imit

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

onP

last

ic)



Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

Blo

ws/

6 in

.

CHECKED BY: AB

DATE: 12/3/2014

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED: 12/19/2014

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\201

4\1

4pro

ject

s\20

1537

15-M

st\2

015

371

5 B

logs

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_BO

RIN

G/T

ES

T P

IT S

OIL

LO

G]

PLO

TT

ED

: 01

/12/

201

5 0

7:3

4 A

M B

Y:

jsal

a


Sam

ple

Typ

e



Clayey SAND (SC): fine grained, low plasticity,reddish brown, moist, dense

Poorly-graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): finegrained, low plasticity, yellowish brown, moist,very dense

Silty SAND (SM): fine grained, low plasticity,yellowish brown, moist, dense

Clayey SAND (SC): fine to coarse grained, lowplasticity, yellowish brown, moist, mediumdense

Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium grained, lowplasticity, yellowish brown, moist, dense


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

15"

17"

18"

18"

18"

18"

18"

19.8 97.5


BC=162430

BC=122650/6"

BC=141717

BC=161015

BC=141415

BC=232721

BC=121721

LABORATORY RESULTS


PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

1 of 1

BORING LOG B-3


A-5


R. HasselerLogged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:


J.R. & R.N.



-90 degreesPlunge:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

11/20/2014

8 in. O.D.

Hollow Stem Auger /


Add

ition

al T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t Wt.

(pcf

)

Pas

sing

#4

(%)

Pas

sing

#20

0 (%

)

Liqu

id L

imit

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

onP

last

ic)



Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

Blo

ws/

6 in

.

CHECKED BY: AB

DATE: 12/3/2014

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED: 12/19/2014

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\201

4\1

4pro

ject

s\20

1537

15-M

st\2

015

371

5 B

logs

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_BO

RIN

G/T

ES

T P

IT S

OIL

LO

G]

PLO

TT

ED

: 01

/12/

201

5 0

7:3

5 A

M B

Y:

jsal

a


Sam

ple

Typ

e



Silty SAND (SM): fine grained, low plasticity,light reddish brown, moist, loose, (FILL)

Decomposed to highly weathered Sandstone-as Silty Sand (SM): fine grained, low plasticity,pink, dry, medium dense

reddish yellow, very dense


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

18"

18"

11"

12"

18"

12"

2"


BC=644

BC=161521

BC=2850/5"

BC=4150/6"

BC=282935

BC=1950/6"

BC=50/2"

LABORATORY RESULTS


PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

1 of 1

BORING LOG B-4


A-6



Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:


J.R. & R.N.



-90 degreesPlunge:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

11/20/2014

8 in. O.D.

Hollow Stem Auger /


Add

ition

al T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t Wt.

(pcf

)

Pas

sing

#4

(%)

Pas

sing

#20

0 (%

)

Liqu

id L

imit

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

onP

last

ic)



Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

Blo

ws/

6 in

.

CHECKED BY: AB

DATE: 12/3/2014

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED: 12/19/2014

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\201

4\1

4pro

ject

s\20

1537

15-M

st\2

015

371

5 B

logs

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_BO

RIN

G/T

ES

T P

IT S

OIL

LO

G]

PLO

TT

ED

: 01

/12/

201

5 0

7:3

5 A

M B

Y:

jsal

a


Sam

ple

Typ

e

approximate 2 inches of decorative aggregatebaserock

Silty SAND (SM): fine grained, low plasticity,dark brown, moist, medium dense

Decomposed to highly weathered Sandstone-as Sandy Silt (ML): fine grained, low plasticity,light yellowish brown, dry, very dense, withsome fine to coarse gravel and sandstonelenses

dense, with some fine to medium gravel

very dense

dense


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

11"

3"

18"

12"

18"

18"

18"

100 67


BC=1750/5.5"

BC=50/3"

BC=151923

BC=1850/5"

BC=131418

BC=162120

BC=131622

LABORATORY RESULTS


PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

1 of 1

BORING LOG B-5


A-7

Surface Condition: Gravel

A. BordLogged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:


J.R. & R.N.



-90 degreesPlunge:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

11/21/2014

8 in. O.D.

Hollow Stem Auger /


Add

ition

al T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t Wt.

(pcf

)

Pas

sing

#4

(%)

Pas

sing

#20

0 (%

)

Liqu

id L

imit

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

onP

last

ic)



Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

Blo

ws/

6 in

.

CHECKED BY: AB

DATE: 12/3/2014

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED: 12/19/2014

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\201

4\1

4pro

ject

s\20

1537

15-M

st\2

015

371

5 B

logs

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_BO

RIN

G/T

ES

T P

IT S

OIL

LO

G]

PLO

TT

ED

: 01

/12/

201

5 0

7:3

6 A

M B

Y:

jsal

a


Sam

ple

Typ

e



Silty SAND with Gravel (SM): fine to mediumgrained, low plasticity, light brown & gray, dry,very dense, with some coarse sand, fine tomedium sub-rounded to angular gravel (FILL)

brown with gray

Decomposed to highly weathered Sandstone-as Silty Sand (SM): fine grained, low plasticity,light olive brown, dry, very dense

gravel band, 1.5 feet thick, fine to coarserounded gravel


R-Value

Direct ShearC = 198 psfØ = 31°

difficult drilling - Sandstone

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6"

5"

46


BC=3650/4"

BC=50/4.5"

BC=273341

BC=111828

BC=111317

BC=3150/6"

BC=141925

LABORATORY RESULTS


PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

1 of 1

BORING LOG B-6


A-8


A. BordLogged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:


J.R. & R.N.



-90 degreesPlunge:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

11/21/2014

8 in. O.D.

Hollow Stem Auger /


Add

ition

al T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t Wt.

(pcf

)

Pas

sing

#4

(%)

Pas

sing

#20

0 (%

)

Liqu

id L

imit

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

onP

last

ic)



Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

Blo

ws/

6 in

.

CHECKED BY: AB

DATE: 12/3/2014

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED: 12/19/2014

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\201

4\1

4pro

ject

s\20

1537

15-M

st\2

015

371

5 B

logs

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_BO

RIN

G/T

ES

T P

IT S

OIL

LO

G]

PLO

TT

ED

: 01

/12/

201

5 0

7:3

6 A

M B

Y:

jsal

a


Sam

ple

Typ

e



Silty SAND (SM): fine grained, low plasticity,gray brown, moist, very dense

medium dense

Clayey SAND (SC): fine grained, low plasticity,reddish yellow to light reddish brown, moist,dense

Silty SAND (SM): fine to coarse grained, lowplasticity, reddish brown, moist, very densedense

The exploration was terminated atapproximately 29.5 ft. below ground surface.The exploration was backfilled with augercuttings and patched at surface on November20, 2014.

Swell/Collapse

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6"

12"

18"

18"

17"

18"

12"

3.9 91.8


BC=50/5"

BC=2950/6"

BC=8811

BC=141722

BC=274150/5"

BC=142250/5.5"

BC=2650/5.5"

LABORATORY RESULTS


PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

1 of 1

BORING LOG B-7


A-9



Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:


J.R. & R.N.



-90 degreesPlunge:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

11/20/2014

8 in. O.D.

Hollow Stem Auger /


Add

ition

al T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t Wt.

(pcf

)

Pas

sing

#4

(%)

Pas

sing

#20

0 (%

)

Liqu

id L

imit

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

onP

last

ic)



Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

Blo

ws/

6 in

.

CHECKED BY: AB

DATE: 12/3/2014

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED: 12/19/2014

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\201

4\1

4pro

ject

s\20

1537

15-M

st\2

015

371

5 B

logs

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_BO

RIN

G/T

ES

T P

IT S

OIL

LO

G]

PLO

TT

ED

: 01

/12/

201

5 0

7:3

7 A

M B

Y:

jsal

a


Sam

ple

Typ

e


approximate 3-1/2 inches of aggregatebaserock

Silty SAND (SM): fine grained, low plasticity,yellowish brown, moist


1


LABORATORY RESULTS


PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

1 of 1

BORING LOG B-8


A-10



Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:


J.R. & R.N.



-90 degreesPlunge:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

11/20/2014

8 in. O.D.

Hollow Stem Auger /


Add

ition

al T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t Wt.

(pcf

)

Pas

sing

#4

(%)

Pas

sing

#20

0 (%

)

Liqu

id L

imit

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

onP

last

ic)



Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

Blo

ws/

6 in

.

CHECKED BY: AB

DATE: 12/3/2014

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED: 12/19/2014

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\201

4\1

4pro

ject

s\20

1537

15-M

st\2

015

371

5 B

logs

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_BO

RIN

G/T

ES

T P

IT S

OIL

LO

G]

PLO

TT

ED

: 01

/12/

201

5 0

7:3

7 A

M B

Y:

jsal

a


Sam

ple

Typ

e



Clayey SAND (SC): fine grained, low plasticity,reddish brown, moist


R-Value2


LABORATORY RESULTS


PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

1 of 1

BORING LOG B-9


A-11



Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:


J.R. & R.N.



-90 degreesPlunge:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

11/20/2014

8 in. O.D.

Hollow Stem Auger /


Add

ition

al T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Sam

ple

Num

ber

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t Wt.

(pcf

)

Pas

sing

#4

(%)

Pas

sing

#20

0 (%

)

Liqu

id L

imit

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

onP

last

ic)



Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

Blo

ws/

6 in

.

CHECKED BY: AB

DATE: 12/3/2014

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED: 12/19/2014

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\201

4\1

4pro

ject

s\20

1537

15-M

st\2

015

371

5 B

logs

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_BO

RIN

G/T

ES

T P

IT S

OIL

LO

G]

PLO

TT

ED

: 01

/12/

201

5 0

7:3

8 A

M B

Y:

jsal

a


Sam

ple

Typ

e

APPENDIX B

Results of Percolation Testing

OWNER/APPLICANT: Monterey-Salinas Transit PROJECT: Monterey-Salinas Transit

SITE LOCATION: 1 Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey, CA PROJECT NUMBER:

CONTACT/TELEPHONE: DATE: 11/20/14 and 11/21/14

REHS:

HOLE #: P-1 PRESATURATE DATE/TIME: 8:45:00 AM 11/20/2014

DIAMETER: 8 inches PRESATURATE WATER DEPTH: 6.40 feet

HOLE DEPTH:15.00 feet HOLE DEPTH (Next Day) /TIME: 13.40 feet

SOIL TYPE: Silty Sand and Clayey Sand WATER DEPTH (Next Day): 10.39 feet

ELAPSED WATER

TIME FALL

READING DATE START FINISH START FINISH MIN. INCHES

1 11/21/2014 12:44 12:54 47.95 54.79 10 6.840

2 11/21/2014 12:54 1:04 54.79 58.15 10 3.360

3 11/21/2014 1:04 1:14 58.15 59.95 10 1.800

4 11/21/2014 1:14 1:24 59.95 61.75 10 1.800

5 11/21/2014 1:24 1:34 61.75 63.55 10 1.800

6 11/21/2014 1:34 1:44 63.55 65.47 10 1.920

7 11/21/2014 1:44 1:54 65.47 67.27 10 1.800

8 11/21/2014 1:54 2:04 67.27 69.07 10 1.800

9 11/21/2014 2:04 2:14 69.07 70.87 10 1.800

RATE: 5.6 min/in * Slow Percolation Below 10.4 feet bgs





ELAPSED WATER

TIME FALL


1 11/21/2014 9:33 9:43 79.40 87.44 10 8.040

2 11/21/2014 9:43 9:53 87.44 92.48 10 5.040

3 11/21/2014 9:53 10:03 92.48 97.64 10 5.160

4 11/21/2014 10:03 10:13 97.64 100.76 10 3.120

5 11/21/2014 10:13 10:23 100.76 104.60 10 3.840

6 11/21/2014 10:23 10:33 104.60 108.44 10 3.840

7 11/21/2014 10:33 10:43 108.44 112.16 10 3.720


PERCOLATION

SOIL PERCOLATION TEST RECORDED MEASUREMENTS

TIME

WATER LEVEL

RATE(in)

MINUTES/INCH*

TIME

PERCOLATION

RATE(in)

1.5

3.0

5.6

5.6

5.6

3.2

2.6

MINUTES/INCH*

WATER LEVEL

5.2

5.6

5.6

5.6

1.2

2.0

2.6

2.7

1.9

OWNER/APPLICANT: Monterey-Salinas Transit PROJECT: Monterey-Salinas Transit

SITE LOCATION: 1 Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey, CA PROJECT NUMBER:

CONTACT/TELEPHONE: DATE: 11/20/14 and 11/21/14

REHS:





ELAPSED WATER

TIME FALL


1 11/21/2014 11:02 11:12 1.00 26.08 10 25.080

2 11/21/2014 11:12 11:22 26.08 33.88 10 7.800

3 11/21/2014 11:22 11:32 33.88 39.28 10 5.400

4 11/21/2014 11:32 11:42 39.28 44.08 10 4.800

5 11/21/2014 11:42 11:52 44.08 48.16 10 4.080

6 11/21/2014 11:52 12:02 48.16 51.04 10 2.880

7 11/21/2014 12:02 12:12 51.04 54.04 10 3.000

8 11/21/2014 12:12 12:22 54.04 56.80 10 2.760

9 11/21/2014 12:22 12:32 56.80 59.56 10 2.760


3.5

3.3

3.6

3.6

MINUTES/INCH*

0.4

1.3

1.9

2.1

2.5

SOIL PERCOLATION TEST RECORDED MEASUREMENTS

WATER LEVEL PERCOLATION

TIME (in) RATE

APPENDIX C

Laboratory Testing Results

B-1 4.0 LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) 28 24 4

B-2 2.0 BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC) 37 16 21

B-2 3.5 GRAY BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) 16.3 107.5

B-2 8.5 - 10.0 3 YELLOWISH BROWN CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC) 29

B-2 13.5 - 15.0 4 LIGHT OLIVE CLAYEY SAND (SC) 24

B-3 2.0 REDDISH BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC) 19.8 97.5

B-5 8.5 - 10.0 3 LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) 100 67

B-6 0.0 - 5.0 LIGHT BROWN AND GRAY SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM) R-Value

B-6 1.5 - 3.5 LIGHT BROWN AND GRAY SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM) Direct Shear

C = 198 psf

Ø = 31°

B-6 13.5 - 15.0 4 LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) 46

B-7 1.0 1 GRAY GROWN SILTY SAND (SM) 3.9 91.8

B-7 4.0 Swell/Collapse

B-9 0.0 - 5.0 2 REDDISH BROWN CLAYEY SAND R-Value

Pas

sin

g 3

/4"

Sieve Analysis (%)

Pas

sin

g #

4

Pas

sin

g #

200

Atterberg Limits

Liq

uid

Lim

it

Sample Description

Pla

stic

Lim

it

Wat

er C

on

ten

t (%

)

Dry

Un

it W

t. (

pcf

)

ExplorationID Additional Tests

Refer to the Geotechnical Evaluation Report or thesupplemental plates for the method used for the testingperformed above.NP = NonPlasticNA = Not Available

TABLELABORATORY TESTRESULT SUMMARY

C-1

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

SampleNo.

Depth(ft.)



gINT FILE: L:\2014\14projects\20153715-Mst\20153715 Blogs.gpj

gINT TEMPLATE: PROJECTWISE: KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB [LAB SUMMARY TABLE - SOIL] PLOTTED: 01/12/2015 07:40 AM BY: jsala

CHECKED BY: AB

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED: 12/19/2014

DATE: 12/2/2014


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

Sample Number Sample Description LL PL PI

%SiltCu %ClayCcExploration ID Depth (ft.)

PLATE

C-2

SIEVE ANALYSIS

50HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

1403 4 20 40

BO

UL

DE

R

6 601.5 8 143/4 1/212 3/8 3 10024 16 301 2006 10

Sieve Analysis and Hydrometer Analysis testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D422.NP = NonplasticNA = Not AvailableNM = Not Measured

D60 D30 D10D100Passing

3/4"Passing

#4Passing

#200

NMNM NM3

NMNM NM8.5 - 10 100NM9.5 NMNM

Exploration ID Depth (ft.)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

medium fine

GRAVEL SANDCOBBLE

coarse coarseCLAYSILT

fine

Coefficients of Uniformity - Cu = D60 / D10

Coefficients of Curvature - CC = (D30)2 / D60 D10

D60 = Grain diameter at 60% passing



67

8.5 - 10B-5

B-5 NM

LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN SANDY SILT (ML)



CHECKED BY: AB

DATE: 12/3/2014

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED: 12/19/2014

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\201

4\1

4pro

ject

s\20

1537

15-M

st\2

015

371

5 B

logs

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_SIE

VE

AN

ALY

SIS

]P

LOT

TE

D:

01/1

2/20

15

07

:28

AM

BY

: js

ala


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

ATTERBERG LIMITS

LL PL PIPassing#200

PLATE

C-3

Exploration ID Depth (ft.)

16

24

16

NM

NM

NA

NA

4

2

CL-ML

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X (

PI)

CL or OL

"U" L

INE

ML or OL4

7

MH or OH

"A" L

INE

CH or OH

Sample Number

Testing perfomed in general accordance with ASTM D4318.NP = NonplasticNA = Not AvailableNM = Not Measured

Sample Description

B-1

B-2

28

37

4

21

LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND (SM)

BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC)



Chart Reference: ASTM D2487

CHECKED BY: AB

DATE: 12/3/2014

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED: 12/19/2014

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\201

4\1

4pro

ject

s\20

1537

15-M

st\2

015

371

5 B

logs

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_AT

TE

RB

ER

G (

AS

TM

)]P

LOT

TE

D:

01/1

5/20

15

12

:30

PM

BY

: js

ala


For classification of fine-grained soilsand fine-grained fraction of coarse-grainedsoils.

1 2 4

7.5 7.5 na

107.5 107.9 na

36.9 37.3 na

0.538 0.532 na

2.42 2.42 na

1.00 1.00 na

18.6 18.2 na

108.4 110.0 na

93.9 96.1 na

0.526 0.503 na

2.42 2.42 na

0.989 0.979 na

After

18.6 18.2 na

767 1438 na

0.060 0.080 na

707 1318 na

LL: NM PL: NM PI: NM GS: 2.65 Assumed 0.300 0.300 na

Test Conditions: Undisturbed / Inundated 0.0060 0.0060 na

Description: Light Brown and Gray Silty Sand (SM) c, psf f, deg. na

Peak 198 30.9 na

Ultimate 78 32.0 na

Remarks: nm = not measured, na = not applicable

Project No:

Date:

Tested by:

Checked By:

File Name:

Vert

ical

Dis

pla

ce

men

t (I

n.)

7.4

107.8

36.5

2576

0.300

0.477

na

2576

4000

96.4

Horizontal Displacement (in.)

Specimen Number

0.300

0.0060

Sh

ea

r S

tres

s (

psf)

0.963

0.534

2.42

1.00

17.3Water Content, %

1.5-3.5

Test Date: 12/17/14

Boring:

Sample:

Depth, ft:

Plate

Tan f

0.62

20153715

1/12/15

CP

HL7396 2601 Barrington Ct Hayward, CA

1a&2a

Dry Density, pcf

Saturation, %

Sh

ear

Str

ess (

psf)

Water Content, %

Dry Density, pcf

MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT DISTRICT

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE FACILITY

1 RYAN RANCH ROAD


C-4

DIRECT SHEAR TEST ASTM

D3080

Void Ratio

Normal Stress (psf)

Diameter, in

Height, in

Normal Stress, psf 1000 2000

RH

Initia

l

Horz. Displ. at Ultimate Shear Stress, in.

Ultimate Shear Stress, psf

Horz. Displ. at Peak Shear Stress, in.

Strain Rate, in./min.

Saturation, %

Peak Shear Stress, psf

Pre

shear

B-6

Water Content, % 17.6

2.42

Void Ratio

112.0

3

Diameter, in

Height, in

0.60

Horizontal Displacement (in.)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350

Normal Stress=1000 psf



Peak Shear Stress

Ultimate Shear Stress

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Peak

Ultimate

Peak

Ultimate

-0.010

-0.008

-0.006

-0.004

-0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35




s

FINAL

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

PLATE

SIZE AND % OF

OVERSIZED MATERIAL NA

WATER TYPE & SOURCE DEIONIZED, TAP

C-5Project No.: 20153715

MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT DISTRICT

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE FACILITY

1 RYAN RANCH ROAD


Pursuant to 2006 IBC Section 1704, the results presented in this report are for the exclusive

use of the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge. The results

apply only to the samples tested. If changes to the specifications were made and not

communicated to Kleinfelder, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for pass/fail (meets/does

BORING NO. B-7

4

ONE DIMENSIONAL SWELL*

INITIAL

DRY DENSITY, psf

WATER CONTENT, %

SAMPLE HEIGHT, in.

92.6

4.1

*PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546

1.0000

NET COLLAPSE (-)

/SWELL (+), %

102.0

17.9

0.8992

-0.4%

Brown Silty Sand (SM)

DEPTH, ft

% C

ON

SO

LID

AT

ION

-12.0

-10.0

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00C

OL

LA

PS

E (

-) /

SW

EL

L (+

), %

PRESSURE (Ksf)

FLOOD

R-VALUE PLATE

C-6


CHECKED BY: RH

DATE: 1/12/2015

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED:



Project Name: MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT

Project No.: 20153715

Lab No.: HL7396

Sample Date:Sample No.: Bulk B-6

Sample Location: B-6 @ 0 - 5.0'

Material Description: Brown with Gravel

Report Date:

Briquette No. A B C

Moisture at Test, % 16.6 15.7 14.8

Dry Unit Weight at Test, pcf 108.2 108.3 109.7

Expansion Pressure, psf 4 13 22

Exudation Pressure, psi 200 289 425

Resistance Value 35 55 70

57

Reviewed By on 12/18/2014:

Laboratory Manager Aaron Kidd

Laboratory Test Report

R - Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure:

Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils (ASTM D2844, CTM 301)

December 18, 2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0100200300400500600700800

R-V

AL

UE

EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi

Limitations: Pursuant to applicable building codes, the results presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge. The results apply only to the samples tested. If changes to the specifications were made and not communicated to Kleinfelder, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for pass/fail statements (meets/did not meet), if provided.

R-VALUE PLATE

C-7


CHECKED BY: RH

DATE: 1/12/2015

DRAWN BY: JDS

REVISED:



Project Name: MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT

Project No.: 20153715

Lab No.: HL7396

Sample Date:Sample No.: Bulk B-9

Sample Location: B-9 @ 0 - 5.0'

Material Description: Brown Clay

Report Date:

Briquette No. A B C

Moisture at Test, % 17.4 16.5 15.4

Dry Unit Weight at Test, pcf 111.9 0.0 111.9

Expansion Pressure, psf 4 13 22

Exudation Pressure, psi 185 270 352

Resistance Value 3 6 7

7

Reviewed By on 12/18/2014:

Laboratory Manager Aaron Kidd

Laboratory Test Report

R - Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure:

Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils (ASTM D2844, CTM 301)

December 18, 2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0100200300400500600700800

R-V

AL

UE

EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi

Limitations: Pursuant to applicable building codes, the results presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge. The results apply only to the samples tested. If changes to the specifications were made and not communicated to Kleinfelder, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for pass/fail statements (meets/did not meet), if provided.

Appendix D

Corrosion Testing Laboratory Results

Appendix E

Summary of Compaction Recommendations

Exhibit 1

Summary of Compaction Recommendations

Area

Compaction Recommendation (1,2,3)

General Engineered Fill Compact to a minimum of 90 percent compaction at a moisture content above the optimum moisture content. Compact fill slopes steeper than 3:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) to a minimum of 95 percent compaction at a moisture content above the optimum moisture content.

Imported Fill (4) Compact to a minimum of 90 percent compaction at a moisture content above the optimum moisture content.

Trenches (5) Compact to a minimum of 90 percent compaction at a moisture content above the optimum moisture content.

Exterior Flatwork (6) Compact to a minimum of 90 percent compaction at a moisture content above the optimum moisture content. Compact baserock to a minimum of 95 percent compaction at near the optimum moisture content.

Parking and Access Driveways (6)

Compact to a minimum of 95 percent compaction at a moisture content above the optimum moisture content. Compact baserock to a minimum of 95 percent compaction at near the optimum moisture content.

Notes: 1. All compaction requirements refer to relative compaction as a percentage of the

laboratory standard described by ASTM D 1557. 2. All lifts to be compacted shall be a maximum of 8 inches loose thickness, unless

otherwise recommended. 3. All compacted surfaces should be firm, stable, and unyielding under compaction

equipment. 4. Includes building and/or equipment pads. 5. In landscaping areas, this percent compaction in trenches may be reduced to 85

percent. 6. Depths are below finished subgrade elevation.

APPENDIX F

GBA Information Sheet

appendix d- geotechnical.pdf

Documents